The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 05/21/2009 R May 21,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 21,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDA Y, MAY 2 1,2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRA TION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDNIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTNE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIA TE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - APRIL 16, 2009 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 12,2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: SV-2009-AR-14140, Red Roof Inn, represented by Brent Forte of Site Enhancement Services, Inc. is requesting four Sign Variances from LDC Section 5.06.04. The first variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.1. which requires a minimum separation of 1,000-foot between signs to allow 262:l:: feet between signs. The second variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.I.a. which allows a 15-foot high sign to allow a 23-foot high sign. The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C. I .c. which allows a sign area of 80 square feet to allow a sign area of 96:l:: square feet. The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 CA which permits one wall sign to allow an additional wall sign. The subject property is located at 1925 Davis Boulevard, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 1 B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13679, Edward Larson of Messiah Lutheran Church Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates (E) Zoning District to expand an existing church and to add an accessory child day care center, pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.B.1.c.l of the Land Development Code. The 5.15-acre subject property is 10cated at 5800 Golden Gate Parkway in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) C. PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, Avow Hospice Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Davidson Engineering Inc., requesting a PUD Rezone from Community Facility (CF) and Agricultural (A) Zoning Districts with a Waterfront Special Treatment Overlay to a Community Facility Planned Use Development (CFPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Avow Hospice CFPUD. The 15.25:l:: acres subject property is for the expansion of the existing Hospice use. The subject property is south of Pine Ridge Road at 1095 Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13245, Collier County through its Solid Waste Management Department, represented by David Deans of PBS & J, is requesting Conditional Uses within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMU) Overlay for Sending Areas to allow I) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery," pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities, including Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.AA.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District for a project to be known as the Resource Recovery Park. The subject property, consisting of approximately 341 acres, is located approximately 1.5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and 1 mile north of White Lake Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) CONTINUED FROM 5/7/09 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of Boat Dock Extension Review Criteria 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 5/21/09 eepe AgendaIRay Bellows/cr 2 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the May 21 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if the secretary could take the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman is absent. Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 2 May 21,2009 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The addenda to the agenda. We have two items on today's agenda. One is the Resource Recovery Park.. And the other would be the boat dock discussion that we'll have after that. We also have our consent agenda items which we'll be going to in just a few minutes. Now, does anybody else have any issues to add, or changes? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is June 2nd, and that is a special meeting, and it will be held in this room at 8:30. It's a Tuesday. And it will be on the new sign ordinance that we all should have received recently. It's a simplified version. We have a working document section which is a section that I would like to suggest we take a page at a time, like we normally have when we approach these kind of things. So as you're reading, if you focus on that first working document section, it might be the most useful one for hopefully our meeting. And then the other sections provide backup as to how that section got to be where it is today. But that will be on Tuesday, the 2nd. Does everybody -- does anybody know if they're not going to be here on that day? Paul and Tor. Okay, we still have a quorum then. And the meeting after that will be our regular meeting on June 4th, regular Planning Commission meeting. Does everybody intend Page 3 May 21,2009 on being here on June 4th? (Nodding heads affirmatively.) Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 16~ 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we have the minutes of April 16th, 2009 for approval. Is there a recommendation to approve, or are there any changes? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CI-IAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MAY 12~ 2009 Page 4 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRIAN: Recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners met last week, but they had no land use items on their agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That says a lot for what's coming up in the future around here. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's report. Ray, I got a-- I had a notice I wanted you to put on the screen, if you could. That's Molly. It's a new member of my family. And I just had to do that, because my wife wanted to see her dog on -- anyway, she's a Lhasa. We just got her this weekend. She's eight weeks old. Thank you, SIr. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Isn't that special. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other item I'd like to mention, Muni. Code. The site is cleaned up, it works great, everything is up to date. And Mr. Klatzkow, I don't know how you did it after months if not years of asking that it get done properly, but thank you very much from this commission, as well as I'm sure the public at large. Because now everybody has an accurate set of codes they can look at. So we sure appreciate what you and your staff have done. MR. KLA TZKOW: I've got good people working for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sure do, sir, thank you. The dock memo. I just passed out to everyone from staff a multi-page memo on the dock issue that we're going to be discussing today . We'll definitely have a break before we discuss the dock issue, so at that time hopefully we'll have time to review it and get more familiar with what's in the package. It may be redundant to what we Page 5 May 21,2009 already have, I don't know, but we'll certainly see as time goes on. And that's the only items I have on the Chairman's report. Item #8A PETITION: SV-2009-AR-14140~ RED ROOF INN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll move right into the consent agenda. First item on our consent agenda today is SV-2009-AR-14140. It's the Red Roof Inn on Davis Boulevard. Does anybody have any concerns or changes to the consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we're looking for a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 6 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #8B PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13679. MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second consent item is Petition CU-2008-AR-13679, it's the Messiah Lutheran Church on Golden Gate Parkway. Are there any concerns or corrections to that consent item? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMA.N STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Wolfley. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #8C Page 7 May 21,2009 PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-12804. AVOW HOSPICE~ INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The third and final consent item is PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, Avow Hospice, Inc., on Whippoorwill Lane. That's another consent item. Does anybody have any comments or changes needed to that consent item? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Seconded -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signi -- oh, Mr. Wolfley, go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was not here for that, so I will not vote. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley will be abstaining and Mr. Murray will be abstaining. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney will be abstaining. Well, let's hope the rest of the six of us all agree it's okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 8 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six approved, three abstained. Thank you. Item #9A PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13245, COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us to our first advertised public hearing, which is Petition CU-2008-AR-13245, Solid Waste Management Department for a resource recovery site north of the current landfill. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just that I received an e-mail from a neighbor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I spoke with Dane Atkinson, Project Manager, regarding issues that I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I received two e-mails from neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've met with the applicant's representative, Mr. Mulhere, I've got e-mails from several neighbors Page 9 May 21,2009 that I think we all got. One of them I remember is Scott and Debbie Green. And I spoke to another landowner out there by the name of Russell Holloway, him and his wife, Nancy. And anything I discussed with them will be discussed today. Okay, sir, it's all yours. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Planning Commissioners. For the record, I'm Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department Director. Thank you for the opportunity to bring the Resource Recovery Park PUD to you for approval. First of all, I'd like to introduce our team of professionals. I'm joined here today by Paul Mattausch, our Water Department Director. Dane Atkinson, he's our Project Manager for the Resource Recovery Park. Sue Zimmerman, she's our Real Estate Services Representative. And we also have Bob Mulhere. He is with RW A, Inc. He's a consultant for PBS&J. Fleet Wolfe and David Deans of PBS&J, they're our environmental consultants for the project as well. And Bill Mullands and Phil Gramatges are here as well with the Engineering Section for Public Utilities. Solid waste management department's vision is to provide best value, responsive services and compliant services to protect our environment. They preserve valuable landfill air space and plan for the development of the Resource Recovery Park that builds the needed infrastructure for the future needs of the community. The need for a sustainable integrated solid waste management strategy is critical because the county continues to grow. So does the quantity of solid waste that's generated throughout the county. As we're all aware, the Collier County landfill provides disposal capacity not only for the unincorporated areas of the greater Collier County, but also for the City of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. Weare guided by the integrated Solid Waste Management strategy, which was unanimously adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 5th of 2006. Page 10 May 21,2009 Our mission is based on enduring guiding principles, which include environmental and growth management compliance, air space preservation, operational excellence and best value service. These enduring guiding principles were also endorsed as a component of that integrated solid waste management strategy. Our solid waste management program is anchored at the Collier County Landfill. However, as we're all familiar, through our participation and guidance during the AUIR process and review, that asset has a finite capacity. To make this resource last as long as possible for the citizens of Collier County, we need to find ways to reduce the amount of waste we generate, to reuse the waste, recycle the weight, process it, as well as to protect our environment by reducing our consumption of natural resources. The Resource Recovery Park does that for us. As approved and directed by the board, our integrated solid waste management strategy focused on both our short-term and our long-term demands to provide effective efficient solid waste management systems for the next 50 years and beyond. Our integrated solid waste management strategy is based on four components: Source reduction, material reuse and recycling diversion, optimizing existing assets and resources, and obtaining additional facilities. We take a look at the screen here, this is a chart that shows the solid waste generated for FY 2008. As you can see from the chart, the majority of the waste that's produced in Collier County is diverted, recycled or reused. Collier County has one of the best recycling programs in the State of Florida. We've benchmarked with many counties: Sarasota, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Orange County. And as you can see from the chart, we landfill just about 40 some percent of our material. There's still much room for improvement. Through the use of single-stream recycling in the county, which Page 11 May 21,2009 many of you participate in, we've seen a tremendous increase of the recycled material that's reused and recycled. Of the residents in the unincorporated area that have the yellow top containers, 55 percent of the material, the waste that's put at curbside is recycled. Huge benefit. It saves over 45,000 tons of landfill air space. We're all familiar with this chart. This is our AUIR chart that shows the life left in our landfill. It's approximately 25 years. Every year that we do more for recycling we add on years to the life expectancy of our landfill. As we reviewed with our staff and the understanding of other municipalities and their disposal capacity, in addition to the beaches in Collier County, our parks and our visitors and residents, one of the most valuable assets we have is our landfill. The garbage doesn't disappear, it needs to go somewhere. The county will always need a landfill. That's why this asset is very valuable. And the Resource Recovery Park will provide the infrastructure, the facilities where we can recycle, source separate many more materials than we currently do at our Collier County Landfill. Now that you understand the context in which the Resource Recovery Park was developed, planned for by the Board of County Commissioners, I'd like to introduce Bob Mulhere with RW A to provide you the specifics of the Resource Recovery Park. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob, before you start, let the record show Mr. Eastman is present. MR. MULHERE: This slide here, it gives you I think a pretty good depiction of the general location of the facility and the surrounding lands. Just in terms of orientation, White Lake Boulevard, 1-75, the existing landfill and the proposed Resource Recovery Park, Collier Page 12 May 21,2009 Boulevard. This slide here, which should be in your packets, provides a little more specific detail, conceptual -- conditional use conceptual site plan for the proposed Resource Recovery Park showing the preserve areas, the buffer areas and the Resource Recovery Park use areas, as well as the proposed stormwater management lakes. There are several out-parcels that you can see. The two larger out-parcels have access. The smaller one at the southern part that's completely landlocked within the Resource Recovery Park did not have access, but the county staff has been working with that landowner over the last several years, and I'm happy to report to you that as of late yesterday afternoon an agreement was reached for the county to purchase that parcel. So that will be on the board's June agenda, we hope, June 6th, I think -- June 9th. So that really eliminates I think a significant operational issue and takes that issue off the table for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, before you go too much further on that, in the context of your discussions today, would we then assume that that parcel, by the time you take it to the BCC, will be assumed to be incorporated into your operations? MR. MULHERE: Yes. If that gets to the -- if the purchase agreement is approved by the board in June, assuming we're going to have to come back on your consent agenda, just an assumption on my part, maybe we won't have to, but if we do have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, everybody has to come back on consent. MR. MULHERE: Okay, then it was a good assumption. Then that means we probably wouldn't get to the board until at the earliest their one July -- their single meeting in July, I don't know the date, but the middle or latter part of July, which would give us the time I think then to deal with staff in terms of incorporating that inholder into the plan. Page 13 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I brought it up is if you're going through a process now -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't want to have to do it twice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm coming from. MR. MULHERE: No, you're absolutely right. And if we need to, we can come back to this for any specific discussions. I'll move through my presentation. I think as it's already been said, the intent for the Resource Recovery Park -- and let me say at the outset that all of the uses that are proposed for this parcel are already going on at the county landfill. But I think it's critically important to state that what happens by shifting these operations to the north, this piece that the county owns, that frees up additional capacity within the landfill as we move forward. Because that space is presently being used for these functions. So as you can see on this slide, debris recovery, construction, demolition materials, biomass or horticultural debris processing, gas and leachate management, all of that's presently occurring within the existing landfill. Which, by the way, is part of the reason why the TIS only generated 10 additional trips, non-peak trips, so that was based on additional employees or potential additional employees. The conditional use application provided an assessment of the amount of parking spaces that might be used in accordance with the LDC provisions for these facilities, but those -- all of those needs are already ongoing at the landfill. So we really, we're only talking about the additional -- or additional impacts associated with potentially some more employees. And we really won't know what the exact parking relationship is until we go through the site planning process. Other functions that will occur on there: Administrative offices, tire processing, white and brown goods processing, household Page 14 May 21,2009 hazardous waste, and recycling material recover facility. These are pictures of those types of operational facilities. These are examples. Not exactly maybe the same way that it will be at the Collier County facility, but it gives you an idea of how that would look. Presently the tire -- the tire processing actually occurs off-site. Once they get enough tires, Waste Management comes in and takes them off-site. It's potential sometime down the road that Collier County might do that on-site. These are just again examples. Some questions came up during the EAC with respect to the household hazardous waste facility and the -- in particular as it related to the fact that there are potable -- or there are well sites located, and I don't know -- is Paul here? Yeah, okay. I don't know if we'll see if there's any questions, but I think we addressed all those questions at the EAC. I was not present at the EAC, but I think all the questions were addressed by virtue of the fact that it was recommended for approval. The requirements through the DEP for containment and other jurisdictional agencies will all be either met or exceeded. And there really is no risk. These are, as I understand it, deep wells. And I guess I'm going to -- you know, I'm certainly not the expert here, so if you have specific questions, we have the experts here to answer those, but I believe that those issues have been addressed. So why is this being undertaken? I think -- you know, without-- I don't want to be too repetitive. Obviously the board directed that this occur. But I guess principally when you think about the benefit to the citizens of Collier County, we're preserving landfill air space by moving these facilities to this other piece of property that the county owns right adjacent to the landfill. And we'll be able to divert more material from the landfill, which I think is appropriate from an ecological perspective, as well as just Page 15 May 21,2009 from having -- extending the life of the landfill. About a 39..acre wetland impact. From the environmental assessment there were no panthers, bears or red-cockaded woodpeckers observed on-site. There were two protected species identified on-site: Bald eagle, no nesting on the site, and the hand fern. In accordance with the -- this property is zoned agricultural. It falls within the North Belle Meade overlay and the rural fringe mixed use district sending designation. And Section 25, there is specifically an allowance within the Growth Management Plan for Section 25 that allows for these uses through a conditional use process. The entire section falls within the sending area, but Section 2B 1 C8A(2) states that public facilities, including solid waste and resource recovery facilities and public vehicle and equipment storage and repair facilities shall be permitted as a conditional use within Section 25. That was specifically put in at the time of the adoption of the rural fringe mixed use district. And that requires that 50 percent of the site be preserved. Access will be through the landfill. This was an issue that was a significant issue I think at the public meeting. There was concern because originally there was a proposal to potentially either build a bridge or build a temporary bridge across 31 st. And I'll go through the site plan if I can, Ray. In this area right here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the mic, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Right here, originally there was a proposal to have emergency and administrative access, which really wasn't -- or access to the administrative facilities. There was a lot of concern about that. And that concern was not only the part of local residents, but also the transportation department had some concerns about that as well. Page 16 May 21,2009 So we just wanted to put clearly on the record that that is no longer part of this proposal. We will not be building a bridge for any kind of administrative access. We also, though, have to say that under an emergency situation, a declared emergency, that wouldn't preclude the federal government or some state agency from coming in and putting in a temporary bridge access to the landfill for emergency debris removal. We are not going to build a bridge or use 31 st Street for any access to the site. All access will be through the existing landfill. I think everyone -- and hopefully everyone agrees that several years ago, probably more than 10 years ago, there was a significant problem with odor associated with the landfill. And over the last 10 years Collier County has done a really excellent job of using technology to eliminate that. And that technology will continue to be used, so there will not be an odor issue associated with these uses. We'll comply with the county's noise ordinance and of course I'm sure we can talk about hours of operation that will -- so the noise won't occur in inappropriate times. The county landfill presently operates for public access from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Operationally it operates from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. And we would propose the same operational hours, Monday through Saturday, the same operational hours for the Resource Recovery Park. There was another question about flooding in the area. Some neighbors raised concerns that this might have a negative impact or could have an impact in that in really significant storm events there was some flooding in certain areas. We've already had preliminary meetings with the Water Management District, and the preliminary design that you see is by recommendation of the Water Management District, the location of those lakes emptying into the canal. As you probably are aware, we can't have any impact on the adjacent neighbors. We have to design this to take all of our water Page 1 7 May 21,2009 and hold it in a storm event and then release it in appropriate fashion into the discharge, the design discharge. So there really will be -- actually, this potentially could have an improvement, but it certainly won't make anything worse. And if we need more specific information, questions answered as we move forward, again we'll have the civil engineer answer those questions. The EAC voted 7-1 in favor of the project. The one dissention was -- and this is as it was related to me, and I did watch the tape of the EAC -- was related to concerns about the wells. Again, we put testimony, and we have Paul Mattausch here if you need some specific questions answered as it relates to that. But there is no issue with cross-contamination, as long as it's designed in accordance with the EP standards, which of course it will be. This was just a revised concept plan that actually shows buffer areas and has a little bit of detail there adjacent to 31 st Street and the canal. So in summary, the Resource Recovery Park is consistent with the BCC policy and their strategic direction, specifically as it relates to this. And it will enable the county to better manage solid waste resource recovery, maximizing landfill capacity, not only today but as emerging technology becomes available, it will provide the county the opportunity to use that emerging technology, again to maximize -- to defer the maximum amount of materials away from the landfill and hopefully -- you know, things like, you know, there's new markets opening all the time for recycled materials. And until you have a market, it's kind of hard to do something with it. But when you find a market, you need to take advantage of that. I think that concludes my presentation. We do have a number of experts. And I know that there will be some public testimony as well, and we'd like an opportunity to respond to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. Okay, we'll start with questions from the Planning Commission. Page 18 May 21,2009 Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It may take one of the staff, but who owns the material and the landfill and the recycled goods? MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director. The county owns the material that's put into the landfill. And it's a shared responsibility with Waste Management as far as the liabilities, the material in the landfill. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Some years ago we met at a public information meeting at the Golden Gate Community Center, may have been four or five years ago. You were discussing putting -- instead of burning off the methane produced out of the landfill it was going to be converted and used to generate electricity, put into the grid, et cetera, et cetera. At the time you said FPL was the holdup. What's the holdup? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, Commissioner, in December 16th of 2008 the Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with Waste Management to design/build a gas energy facility. It's currently in permitting with the FDEP, the air permit. We expect that to come back from FDEP within the next two weeks. And Waste Management has about a 90 percent complete site development plan. As soon as we get that permit, we'll move forward with -- to CDES, community development, to get our permit to construct that facility. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, that's very good. So currently you're still burning off the -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- gasses. Okay. I had some discussions with Mr. Atkinson and, you know, I'm comfortable with the fact that anything that is going to be put on the ground, let's say~ is either going to be on concrete and then even an overflow, not bladder, but what's the name for that? A containment, a Page 19 May 21,2009 containment -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Secondary containment. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Secondary con -- thank you very much. And then I asked, well, right now there are -- it looked like even by the pictures you just sort of cut up the tires. And it looked like an excellent source for insects, rodents, et cetera, et cetera. Why aren't -- why wouldn't that just be immediately crushed into small pieces that can be sold and is of value? Just regarding tires. It is an asset that's used in roads, used in other means. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. It depends on what's available in the market. As I said earlier, one of the requirements that the board directs us to do is to have a best value service. Currently the best value is to contract with Waste Management. They actually use the tires for fuel at an energy plant. They actually burn them for fuel. If there's an opportunity to work with a private vendor that specializes in the processing of rubber to create material that can be better utilized or reused in some other material, absolutely. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Like roads or whatever. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And the household hazardous waste facility, will that be available on an any-day basis? In other words, I can bring in old batteries and paint and whatever it may be that I may have, I could bring that in any day? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. Similar to the recycling centers that we have throughout Collier County. We have four in total. You can bring your hazardous waste, your batteries, your fluorescent bulbs, your paint. Any of the materials that would be hazardous to the environment, absolutely. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that's at -- you charge by weight, or how is that done? MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the residents of Collier County that pay Page 20 May 21,2009 the assessment, their annual garbage bill, that's a free service. They bring that material. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Great, thanks. Can you explain what white goods are? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Those are appliances. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Like a stove or a refrigerator. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Stove, refrigerators, washer and dryers. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What do you do with those? MR. RODRIGUEZ: They're actually recycled. As we're all aware, they have a lot of metals in them. The -- for the refrigerators the freon's extracted and recycled, and then the metal is sent off to be recycled as well. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. And the C&D and brown goods facility, can you describe what that is? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. There's several operating in the county already and at the landfill, a very large one. What it is, construction and demolition material. Your concrete, your woods, your metals. And what Waste Management does for the county is they source separate that. They pull those materials out of the large dumpsters, the large roll-offs, and it's recycled. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: As? MR. RODRIGUEZ: The metals are sent off to a metal recycling facility, the wood is recycled, as is the other material. Whatever is left that cannot be recycled, for instance, drywall, it's actually sent out of the county to a landfill that's owned by Waste Management. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Or back to China. Sorry. That's all I have for now, Chair. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why do they call it air space preservation instead of land area preservation? MR. MULHERE: Because the landfill actually, you know, gets Page 21 May 21,2009 higher and higher and higher and gets into air space as materials are -- I don't know, is that the highest point in Collier County? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I see that you have a zero odor emissions policy. Why is it that when I drive to the Planning Commission meetings on 1-75, very often I can smell the facility? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director. Commissioner, I've been your director for three years and I've not gotten a complaint about the odor at the landfill that was justifiable. So if there is an odor, we're not made aware of it. Because we have very strict guidelines, not only for a contractor of Waste Management, but as we all know nine years ago the Board of County Commissioners with our county manager put some serious mandates. The landfill will not stink. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I must be the only one who can smell it. How is the water retention area protected from runoff from the landfill ? MR. MULHERE: Well, there's no connection. The landfill is south. The water won't go south. The water will be contained in those lakes and then it will enter in through a discharge into the canal system. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the water from the landfill that falls on it as rain, where does that water go? MR. MULHERE: They have their own -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: As you know, the landfill is a very large facility. It actually has leachate collection. Leachate is the water material that comes out of the landfill that infiltrates through rain. There's a very large and comprehensive sophisticated leachate collection system, pumps that pull that water and send that to the wastewater facility. There's a separation from the liner to normal runoff that they Page 22 May 21,2009 never come in contact. And there's redundant systems. They're inspected daily, several times. And by the FD EP permit, to run and operate the landfill we have to clearly show that we're maintaining that operation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Where does the leachate go? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Goes to the south wastewater plant for processIng. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that doesn't interfere at all with the operation of the reuse of that water because of the chemicals that might be in the leachate? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, it meets all FDEP requirements for reuse. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Bob, are there two separate plans here? Look at the end of your presentation. Like there was a different plan on -- than what's up here now. MR. MULHERE: It's slightly different. Actually, I don't think it's very different. I just think there's just some additional information on that plan. I'll show you, we switched a few things. For example, I want to say that the original plan, the household hazardous waste has been shifted away from this area and moved further away. COMMISSIONER CARON: From the well site. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So, I mean -- and then also it shows a little more detail on this buffer area. I'm sorry, I'm pointing and you can't see that, so I apologize. And I don't have a newer one that I can put on the visualizer, but it is on your screen. And if you look at the green line and the circle that shows the detail, that was added. That wasn't on the original plan. But the big difference is the shifting of the household hazardous waste facility. Oh, thank you. Yeah, you know what I should have figured that Page 23 May 21,2009 out. Yeah, right here. And that was in response to concerns that were raised at the neighborhood information meeting, as well as the EAC. But it's generally the same plan. I mean -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's a good thing. Although -- what is the reason for the layout as it is? I mean, is there a method to the madness of this layout? MR. MULHERE: I'm going to let Dan answer that, because I really wasn't part of the planning of the process as part of this. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Due to the activities at the landfill, as we know, currently your landfill operates with about 300 to 600 visitors a day. And what we want is the operational facility to be contiguous to the landfill. That's why a majority of the operations are at the southern border. But more importantly, it is our policy to be good neighbors. We wanted the buffer that impacted the majority of the neighbors to the north to be present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. MULHERE: And also, if I -- I'm sorry, I just wanted to add one thing. There was I know -- I know there was some discussion, and particularly administrative facilities were put where they were put as an additional buffer between the residential to the west and the more intense uses further to the east. So there was that level of discussion. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, yes, that's where I want to get down to the lower part, not the preserve area. I understand that. But let's talk about that. It's nice that you put administration down here to buffer homes to your east -- I'm sorry, to your west. But are the hazardous waste and the recycle of -- the dirty manufacturing is that the next least intense operation? So hazardous waste -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it's all enclosed. The hazardous waste Page 24 May 21,2009 facilities is all enclosed. And I can show you a picture if you'd like of the Marco Island hazardous waste facility. And that shows a -- that's the Marco Island hazardous waste collection facility. And as you can see, it's an enclosed structure. Aesthetically it looks great. But functionally it protects not only the environment but people from the materials that we collect. And let me remind the public that the household hazardous waste is anything you'd find in your garage, whether it's oils, paints, batteries, things like that. Most importantly, those materials are collected and on a weekly basis they're transported out. So there's never large quantities of that material stored on-site. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. That's what I was trying to get to -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that you were moving the more intense -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- further away from the neighborhood. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Closer to the landfill to the southern, centrally located, absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Violent storm waste materials, I know that after the last hurricane we had piles of that material. Is this intended to take this type of material, that part of the process here? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. I believe there's 72 acres set aside for debris recovery efforts during a hurricane, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And would there -- do you contemplate that this would be then the only site, or would you -- Page 25 May 21,2009 MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- expect ancillary sites? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, due to the size of Collier County, we need multiple sites, as we witnessed in Hurricane Wilma. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And your projections are that such violent storm waste materials can be recycled rapidly after a storm event? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. The direction from the Board of County Commissioners and our county manager during emergency events is to of course be safe and to get everything back to normal operating function as soon as possible. So those materials through our contractor would be processed and shipped out of county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Another question having to do with population, which of course is a basis for everything as we project forward. As we all know, the population has basically gone stagnant, so to speak, in terms of progression. Maybe it's even regressed, I don't know. But have you taken that into your calculation? Is that part of it? Because as a capital project, when you move forward it's going to be expensive. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. That's a very good question. If I could just take you back to the chart here that shows the actual materials collected in Collier County. Remember, there's still 600,000 tons of material that's collected throughout Collier County. And even with the population decrease, we've seen a slight reduction of the landfill of about 25, 30 percent, depending on the commodity. Mainly in construction. However, we still have 348,000 tons that are still processed, recycled and diverted. We still have to go after another 240,000 tons that's still being buried in the county. And there's tremendous work that we can do as it relates to the businesses in Collier County that are still putting cardboard, aluminum cans, plastics into our landfill. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that Pembroke Pines is a Page 26 May 21,2009 recycling center that Waste Management operates. I've visited it and so I'm familiar with it. And I know that we have contract for materials that are shipped there. Will this change impact those contracts and potentially provide us with income above and beyond what we currently derive, if we derive any? MR. RODRIGUEZ: It has a great potential for that. As I mentioned earlier, the county operates its solid waste functions as a best value. We currently pay Waste Management through our collection to collect the recyclables and ship them to the other coast. If we partner with Waste Management or some other contractor that specializes in waste services to build a recycling facility like at Pembroke Pines, that would reduce the cost to the county of not having that transportation cost to the other coast. So the potential is great there. If I could just add, Collier County has one of the lowest assessments in the State of Florida. We pay roughly about $1 71 a year for a very high level, twice-a-week collection services. So any improvements infrastructure that we can build here locally and find markets locally, whether it's here, in Sarasota, to take those products instead of shipping them to the other coast has a tremendous benefit to us. And Waste Management has a strong interest in building a facility here, potentially. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How potentially -- close is potentially? Because I'm thinking what we have right now, as far as I know, we have two items that are shipped to Pembroke Pines, which are paper, cardboard and plastic recyclable, which goes to China, interestingly enough. What other items would they be considering? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, we also have metals that are collected in our recycling program as well. And it's -- you have different plastics, but it's the volume of material that we collect.N Page 27 May 21,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. RODRIGUEZ: The opportunity to collect more volume and process it here locally would save us money, instead of shipping more volume across to the east coast. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I understand hopefully would save us some money. That of course is not information you have at your fingertips, correct? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That would be my questions, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, maybe you can answer this. The property to the south, all of it is owned by Collier County, everything touching the southern boundary of this? MR. MULHERE: No. No, if you look at the site plan -- well, let me get the site plan. I'll use the curser. This area here. Okay. And over here, that's zoned A ago and it's vacant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is it sending area also? MR. MULHERE: Yes -- no, that's not sending. That's -- is it industrial? MS. ZIMMERMAN: It's agricultural with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you know, we can't have people from the audience commenting. You have to -- MR. MULHERE: I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have everybody to the microphone. MR. MULHERE: I'll answer that question. That's got an industrial designation in the Future Land Use Map. It's ago zoned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The island properties, the 10 acres, what are they being used for now and what do you know about the future use of those acreages? Page 28 May 21,2009 MS. ZIMMERMAN: Sue Zimmerman, Collier County Real Property Management. The property -- MR. MULHERE: Use the curser. MS. ZIMMERMAN: This parcel is agriculturally zoned vacant. We believe that they have some animals, goats or something on there. And then this is actually three different property owners. I believe it's a five-acre parcel here and two and a half acre parcels. They're vacant agricultural. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could they be developed with homes? MR. MULHERE: Yes, they could be. Each one of those parcels could be developed with single-family homes. And they have access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, in the design of this, why didn't you run some of the preserve down the western boundary? I know that lakes look like they're buffers, but lakes take sound across them pretty slick, so -- MR. MULHERE: Well, there is a buffer. You're not -- there's not a preserve, but there is a required buffer in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many feet? MR. MULHERE: Thirty, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's -- MR. MULHERE: Twenty. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, why didn't you think of maybe running the preserve down the western boundary? Maybe not obviously -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I assume that -- you know, there's a limited amount of property that we can use here. And there's a pretty significant roadway, there's a buffer, there's the lakes, then there's the setback on the other side. There's a pretty significant distance there. And we have a -- actually a slide that shows that. Yeah, and also there's wells there. So they need access to those Page 29 May 21,2009 wells. There's actually -- that's a -- there's a roadway that accesses those wells. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we have a well in the middle of the preserve, so we could get there. Okay, so in other words, by your design you -- because it would be nice to protect that way. Road access to this, is there only one access drive to the whole waste area? Obviously it splits up into two -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But everybody would come in that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- one road along the canal there? MR. MULHERE: Yes -- no, not along the canal. You can see -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Down around 75. Doesn't everything come in along the -- MR. MULHERE: Here and here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but I'm -- but below that you're along the canal along 75 -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with just one access at that point, correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct, yes. Through the existing landfill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The -- is the use of this only going to be for Collier County? Is there any intention that this would be used for other communities, stuff brought into it? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually we have a policy that we only take waste from Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. MR. MULHERE: There might be -- I just wanted to make sure to clarify, though, there could be -- the county could enter into an Page 30 May 21,2009 agreement with a vendor or some private entity to do some sort of operational thing, but not to take in waste materials from somewhere else. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But like we heard earlier, they were taking stuff to Pembroke Pines, we don't want somebody bringing stuff to us. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, a couple of other questions that I had notes from neighbors. One is this business of the road. Why isn't there a configuration to do some sort of loop road so that trucks and whatnot don't have to be backing up all day and all night? Or is there in here? MR. MULHERE: Well, there is in a way sort of a loop road. I mean, you can see these -- excuse me, these cul-de-sacs here, which will be designed to allow trucks to turn around, right? So they may come in this way or this way. They may come over here and then, you know, go back out. Eventually it goes into a singular point of ingress and egress. And in order for that to be acceptable to the fire district, whom we've met with, we'll need to design the site with appropriate fire hydrant and fire suppression systems. But they have looked at it and they are okay with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that issue should not affect neighbors. MR. MULHERE: It should not. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Security, what do we do in the county for security on these sites? MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director. We have perimeter fence that's maintained and managed. We have cameras throughout the facility. We have card access at the main gates. And throughout the evening the security staff and facilities Page 31 May 21,2009 manager comes out and tours our facility to ensure that the site is secure. We would have the same type of security processes there at the Resource Recovery Park. COMMISSIONER CARON: So in the evening there's somebody on-site all the time doing roving security? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, the roving security from facilities does come out and patrol. They do. And we have cameras on-site as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. But they just come out occasionally. They have other places that they're -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you don't have somebody on-site, though. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Not all night, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do. Don't go away, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with where Brad had left off on the western property line by those lakes. You have a 20- foot buffer but you also said there's a road there, which I'm sure isn't going to have much of a buffer in the middle of the road, otherwise it wouldn't be a road. MR. MULHERE: No, the buffer's west of the road, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a problem of widening that strip that is east of the road? Well, if it's west of the road then you're between the current Golden Gate canal and the road, is that right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm trying to read with my failing eyes this little detail here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we all got the same Page 32 May 21,2009 document, so -- MR. MULHERE: No, I take that back, the landscape buffer is east of the access easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any reason why you could not expand the side that's east of that roadway to 35 feet, berm it, landscape it and put a sound wall on top of it? And -- let me finish. And then towards the bottom, if you notice the small lake you have there, and if you look below the lake you've got a circumference of a half of a quarter circle there. Apparently it's a well zone. Doesn't look like you can do much in that well zone any. Why wouldn't you make up the difference you need in water management by running the lake further to the south and continuing that buffer until you reach that corner? MR. MULHERE: I don't even know if the lake can be within that. You know, I don't -- I can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then can you have a buffer there? Then you can continue to buffer without the lake. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm suggesting -- I was putting a more solid buffer there. Because your -- it looks like by the aerial one of the greatest populations in the Estates that surrounds you happens to be to the west of the site more so than any other direction. And I would -- and that seems to be the least buffered area on this entire site. MR. MULHERE: I just want to make sure I understand what you asked for. You asked for an additional 15 feet. So instead of 25 feet, 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you put a berm on it. MR. MULHERE: You asked for a berm and wall or -- berm and wall combination, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, berm and wall combination with whatever landscaping we would require under a buffer. MR. MULHERE: Probably a three-foot berm, six-foot wall. Page 33 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. MR. MULHERE: And landscaping on the outside of the wall, obviously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MULHERE: We may -- MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, because we're going to have to get this documented, from what point to what point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The length of the lakes. See where the lake starts up on top? It would be the full length of those -- the bodies of water will do nothing to protect the people to the west from any sound or whatever activities go on in there. I know a 35-foot buffer is a little bigger than we normally experience, but this facility is unique and a little bit bigger than what people may have experienced in that area. And I think it would be a good neighbor policy to try to give them as much as possible. So that's why I'm suggesting this. MR. KLATZKOW: So the northern point of the upper lake, all the way down to the southern -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the way down to the corner of the property, right. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commissioner Strain, to respond -- Dan Rodriguez, your Director. Absolutely we could entertain those improvements. What I'd like the commission to consider is that if we could put the additional buffer the 35 feet, whatever you request, and a berm, but if we not put the wall because of the expense and the impact to the taxpayers and this proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think the wall's part of the problem that they're going to have with the noise. The noise is what I think is going to be a driving factor across that water. We've still got to hear from the residents. Let me hear what they have to say. And if they're satisfied with a berm and a landscape Page 34 May 21,2009 buffer, then -- I mean, I don't live near there, they do, and I'm more concerned about their issues. MR. MULHERE: If I could also add for consideration, there's going to be -- as this is developed, there's going to be other landscape buffer areas surrounding these development areas too. And I wonder if we couldn't recapture some of that. You know, if the most important thing is to buffer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the most important thing in this project is the perimeter buffers. MR. MULHERE: That's what I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you do in between your parcels is to me a waste of time. But as long as the perimeter buffers so the public and residents are most protected, that's where I think the focus ought to be. We'll come back to that comment then after we hear public comments. Mr. Rodriguez, on the neighborhood informational meeting the following statement is attributed to you. It says, Mr. Rodriguez commented that the recycling processing would be located in a closed building setting, (inside a building). Now, you've got a number of processes here. And you showed us one, the hazardous waste that's inside a building. All the processes will be inside a building? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, not all processes. What I was referring to was the potential for a MRF of -- similar to what they have at Pembroke Pines. Those pieces of equipment or machinery would be located inside. Some of the materials that are recycled, white goods, tires, horticulture waste, because of the quantities and because of the size of the equipment and whatnot and for safety reasons they've got to have plenty of room to move those around and whatnot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand like the piles of debris and all that, and when you offload trucks, some of it's not going -- that can't. But the actual turning of those items into salable product or Page 35 May 21,2009 useable product or by-product, the turning of those into something, that's going to be inside a building? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, the systems that require processing more than likely would be inside a building to protect from the elements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More than likely. Now, I love those words. You sound like an attorney. No offense, Mr. Klatzkow. You're the only attorney that doesn't say those kind of things. That's not what you said in your neighborhood information meeting. You didn't say more than likely. You said would be located in a closed building. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, I was referring to a material resource recovery facility. That's a facility that processes aluminum paper, cardboard. Naturally those would have to be in a building to protect from the elements. Because of the technology that may come or go, for me to sit and say everything is going to be enclosed in a building wouldn't be fair, most importantly because the impact to the taxpayers and the cost of structures, things like that. And that may not be a best value solution. But we will meet every code as it relates to noise, odor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, the codes that are made for the urban area don't apply in the same manner as in the Estates. I've lived out there for 30 years, and you can hear things a lot further in the quiet of the rural area than you can in the urban area. So I understand you're going to meet our codes, everybody has to. But the distance and the sound travel will be further from your facility there than if you were in the heart of Collier County. You showed a picture of a machine that was recycling tires. How does that -- is that machine operated with a diesel motor of some kind or a -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. What it is, is a large grinder. Page 36 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would that be located inside a building? MR. RODRIGUEZ: It depends on the application. It depends on the contractor that we negotiate a contract with. Does it need to be? For operational reasons, no. But it depends on the situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm thinking of noise. Imagine if it's diesel, it's a fairly noisy machine. Especially if it's going to grind. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, the noise would be no different than what we currently hear at the landfill. We have four of those grinders working for the last year and a half at the landfill as part of the reclamation process of25 years. And I receive no noise complaints. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much closer is the location on this property where you're putting that -- those grinders than they are on the current landfill; do you know? MR. RODRIGUEZ: It'd probably be about 500 feet from where we're currently operating. Weare right at the northern edge with our grinders and our back hoe equipment and processing systems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're going to have to figure out something on that issue of what should be in a building and what shouldn't, but we'll do more of that as the time -- as we go on. Hours of operation. You're looking at restricting the hours of operation to the same as the current landfill, both in operation and in a public land use; is that right? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The pull-through loading and dumping. Bob, as I understand what you said, when you get down to a cul-de-sac, they're going to be big enough for trucks to turn around, that's code. So they've got to be big enough for that. But I think the concern is when you go down that cul-de-sac and you pull into one of those parcels to drop off your load, are you going to provide -- design each parcel within a loop like a horseshoe within Page 37 May 21,2009 itself so that a truck could pull in, unload without causing too much backup movement and then pull forward and move back out again without causing a lot of backup movement? MR. MULHERE: I mean, I don't know that I can answer that in every case that will be the design. We're not even that close. Should that be -- that would be the most efficient way to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You would have no problem doing that if it was at all possible; is that right? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then a stipulation to that effect wouldn't kill you. There -- apparently you've got some easements going north from where that blue lake is that are cleared. And they're county property. And apparently they're not fenced off. And as a result of that, they're being used by A TV race tracks. And A TV's to me are one of the most annoying things ever invented by man, especially in the Estates. Is there something that can be done to block that off and provide the peace and quite that people -- what little they can have out there? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Commissioner, as we move forward with the site development plan, our intention is to have a secured site, and that would eliminate those equipments from getting onto the site, absolutely. Now, working with Paul Mattausch, our director, with water as well, to secure those wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that -- I've got a lot of questions -- I've got some questions of staff, but that's enough for you guys right now. So thank you very much. Any other questions of the applicant before we move on to staff report? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, in the development of this, Page 38 May 21,2009 what elevation -- you're obviously digging a lake, you're obviously going to use the fill on the site. What elevation do you plan to be the ground elevation of the development? MR. MULHERE: I don't know. Whatever is required by code. MR. DEANS: Dave Deans with PBS&J. I'm the Civil Engineer, the Garbologist on the project. That elevation will be established by the stormwater management system when we get into final design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looking at the LIDAR, it's about 11 feet. Do you think you'll be bringing it up or -- so in other words you're going to put it at the code minimum? MR. DEANS: We don't want to spend any more money on fill than we absolutely have to, but we want to do everything we absolutely have to to make the stormwater management system function according to code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And Kay, I guess we'll have staff report. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, I'm a Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. In addition to my presentation, we do have other staff persons here that can address questions that you may have specific to their area of expertise. We have Corby Schmidt that can address Growth Management Plan issues, Susan Mason who can address the issues about environmental questions, and John Podczerwinsky for transportation. You do have the staff report, which is a document dated last revised 4/15/09. On the first page it goes into the requested action, noting that the petitioner is seeking approval of three different Page 39 May 21,2009 conditional uses to allow the operation that they have described to you to occur on the site. You have the geographic description as to where the property is. On the next page you do have a purpose and description of the project. Obviously the petitioner has explained what it is they're proposing to do in much greater detail. You have a rendition of what is currently the surrounding uses in zoning on the property. And you have an aerial photograph that hopefully depicts those things as well. Starting at the bottom of Page 2 is the growth management consistency review . We've addressed the Future Land Use Element. Going on to Page 4, there's a transportation element analysis, and then a conservation and coastal management element. Staffhas evaluated all the appropriate policies and has deemed this particular petition to be subject to a finding that it can be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Going on to Page 7, we do have the analysis for the findings that are required to support a recommendation of approval. Staff has gone through the different findings that are required. There are four separate findings. And staff has provided positive information that supports our recommendation of approval. There is an analysis -- I'm sorry, a summary of the Environmental Advisory Council's recommendation on Page 10. There's information provided about the neighborhood information meeting on Page 10, going on to Page 11. And on Page 11 is a rendition of the staff conditions. Weare recommending approval. We have listed at this point nine conditions that would go along with that recommendation. The first condition identifies the site plan. The second condition puts the applicant and the public on notice that although we are adopting this conceptual site plan, the final design will still need to be in compliance with all federal, state and county laws and regulations.d Page 40 May 21, 2009 Condition number three does allow, as does the LDC, minor changes to the citing of this particular master -- concept plan. Condition number four puts it on record that any expansion of the uses beyond what is sought here, if this were to be approved, would then need to seek and get approval of a new conditional use. Condition number five talks about the accesses that would need to be provided to parcels that are located within -- commonly referred to on the site plan as out parcels, just to make sure that everyone does have adequate access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, just so you know, I think we've all got your recommendations in our staff report, so we can probably figure those out ourselves. If there's anything that needs to be clarified in regards to those that might be helpful. MS. DESELEM: The condition number six can be removed, because the petitioner has now withdrawn any idea of having that emergency administrative access road. And it's my understanding that condition number five can be amended to remove the first clause, quote, if it is judicially determined or otherwise agreed to by the county, then. That portion can be removed. All other conditions should remain as they are. Other than that, that's my presentation. Like I said, we are recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval with conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kay, I know you stated that they would have to come in for an additional conditional use if anything changed from the current processing, but there is currently an activity that goes on and Waste Management people are the ones that perform the activity, as well as some county people. Page 41 May 21,2009 If they were to enhance this in any way current -- MS. DESELEM: Excuse me just a moment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Surely. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's quite all right, I understand. If they -- in other words, there's an operational going on and that operation, you know, is -- envisions certain activities, how would you know if those activities were to be adjusted, greater quantities, more frequency, et cetera, what is the tripping point to determine whether or not a new conditional use is required? MS. DESELEM: As a general rule nobody in the county goes out to check to nlake sure that everybody is doing exactly what it says in their conditional use approval. Most commonly it's a code enforcement issue, we get a complaint and then it's investigated from that standpoint. But we don't have any, you know, police that goes out there and checks the conditional use. So normally it's a code enforcement issue that brings something to staffs attention and then we investigate it from there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If they were to seek to modify a structure, that would just simply go in for modified site development plan, would it? MS. DESELEM: Yes, because the site doesn't show any structures, and it doesn't show that extent. It's more defined by a use within a certain area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. What I'm trying to get at -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'd just like to make a point of clarification. A site development plan would be required for any structures placed on the site. That is compared to the conditional use to make sure it is consistent with the conditional use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that the tripping point? Page 42 May 21,2009 MR. BELLOWS: That is the-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was looking for. So basically there's a potential to enhance operations without going beyond what the operational idea is at the moment, because I know they anticipate additional opportunities and that would require a structure and change in operations. So I'm happy now to know that. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Thank you, Ray. If I may, when Heidi jumped over here and was talking to me, I misspoke. I was under the impression that we were revising condition five, and it appears that we are not revising condition five. So it would remain as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we've got to erase, right? MS. DESELEM: Yeah, sorry. I hope you didn't put it in ink. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We did, red ink. MS. DESELEM: Oh, man. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I learned a long time ago only use pencil, Kay. Okay, Mr. Schiffer, I think you had the next question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, in the -- when you were working through this site plan, you've put a 200- foot preserve down the eastern side of the property on what looks like Garland Road. And our plans show that that's buffering land that the county itself owns. Why wouldn't we do the same thing on the western side? I mean, to me the major flaw in this layout is that the side that really does have people living on it does not have the protection, I think. I mean, a lake looks pretty, but it certainly doesn't help with sound and things. So was there any discussion about actually putting a buffer down that boundary line? A substantial buffer, not walls and 35 feet. MS. DESELEM: To my knowledge, no, there was not any discussion along those lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But as a planner, do you see Page 43 May 21,2009 that as a concern or an issue or a good idea, or what? MS. DESELEM: It seems like it would be, you know, enhancing what buffer we have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I know it kind of messes up the site plan. But first of all, they have more area than they thought by that purchase of the property. The leachate thing to me seems that it would make more sense across that access road anyway closer to the actual landfill mounds. So I don't think -- I think they have plenty of area on this site to lay it out in many ways, so -- MS. DESELEM: Staff seemed to believe that the way they had it set up as far as the administration and equipment maintenance facility being a lesser intense use, and the applicant has through this process moved some of the uses around to be more sympathetic to the neighbors to the west so that he didn't have what could be deemed as a more obnoxious use, if you'll excuse the term. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think an administrative -- first of all, it's not going to be that large an administrative building that it's going to be the biggest buffer. I'll wait till they're ready. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, yes, administration's the least of all of them, but it's not going to be that big a building where it's that good a buffer. Anyway, I don't think we can count on a lesser use in a building to be that buffer, so -- anyway, enough said. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: If I may, Ray clarified that that area shown along the eastern boundary is not necessarily a buffer, it's part of the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, and that's -- MS. DESELEM: It could act as a buffer, perhaps, but-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what I would like -- MS. DESELEM: -- it's not a buffer. Page 44 May 21,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what I'd like to see is the preserve extended down the western, similar to that at that dimension. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I've got one. It's on Page 10. I mean, it's not a question in effect you can do much about. But the fact that the EAC wants to review the SDP, do you know anybody on the EAC that has the credentials of any of our engineering staff or anybody like that that show qualifications to review SDPs? MS. DESELEM: I don't have that knowledge one way or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if any criteria in the LDC provide guidance to the EAC under what manner they may review an SDP and under what manner they may decide it is incompatible or compatible or under what manner they may turn it down or reject it? I mean, we're asking this applicant, as well as any applicant -- and I've had the same position repeatedly, to send an SDP through a process that has no bearing and no usefulness seems to be a giant waste of time for any member of the public or any applicant to go through. So I don't know why staff incorporated that into their recommendations. I assume you felt you had to because the committee recommended it. But I as one member of this commission will not accept that as a recommendation and I will be asking that be stricken. Yes, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. No, we noted that as their request, but staff has not recommended that, nor will I support that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just -- it gets to be -- there's no Page 45 May 21,2009 regulations, they're no rules by which it could be reviewed. It doesn't make any sense. MR. SCHMITT: The SDP, once it's submitted, is a document that's open for review, if anybody wants to come into community development and review it. Any board member or the public has that option to come in and sit and look at an SDP. But it's an administrative process. And I have no intent on bringing the SDP back to the EAC for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the processes that we recommend as stipulations today, if they're upheld by the Board of County Commissioners, then you're obligated to make sure those are incorporated into the SDP; is that correct? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, would you rephrase that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any stipulations that we make to the BCC today, as well as any stipulations they add or accept, once they accept the stipulations, staff is obligated from that point forward to make sure all those stipulations are incorporated into the SDP when it comes through. MS. DESELEM: Yes, if that's the appropriate time to adopt or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: -- you know, whatever the case may be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what I'm saying. So any protection to the public doesn't work at the SDP level, it's got to happen at this level. So if there are any concerns or any restrictions we want to put through to make sure the SDPs are right, we better make them today. And that's where the -- I guess where the buck stops is these boards, so MS. DESELEM: rfI may clarify as well, we do have condition number nine that is a reiteration of the EAC review condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I saw it. MS. DESELEM: And obviously if you don't want that to go Page 46 May 21,2009 forward, that can be your recommendation. We take the EAC recommendation, as well as your recommendation forward to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And I'll make it clear for the record, again when we send a staff report to the board, I would so note that though they ask for it, there's no requirement and there's no precedence for it. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll even be clearer, on the assumption that this would go on the summary agenda, if we can clear up all the problems, that will not be a stipulation of approval. It will be noted in the staff report that the EAC requested it. If any board member wants to pull it at that point in time to put it back in, that's their prerogative. But it will not automatically go. MR. SCHMITT: Thanks, Jeff, for the clarification. That's an excellent suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Any other questions of staff at this time? MS. DESELEM: I can clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay? MS. DESELEM: Mr. Mulhere just reminded me that there was a 7-1 vote to the EAC. Therefore it cannot go on the summary agenda to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if -- I didn't -- that's something legal department can determine. I'm not sure -- I didn't know EAC reflected summary or non-summary -- MR. SCHMITT: It doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- agenda. I thought it was only-- MS. DESELEM: My understanding is the criteria for the summary agenda, there can't be any board that does not have a unanimous vote. MR. MULHERE: I'm pretty sure I was responsible for writing that. Unless there's some wiggle room in there, I believe it says Page 47 May 21,2009 unanimous recommendation of the EAC and CCPC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, hopefully it will be checked. And if it doesn't apply, then the County Attorney can handle it. Okay, do we have -- that's the last questions of staff. Then we'll move to public speakers. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have three speakers. First speaker is Wayne Jenkins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when you speak, you can come to either podium that's most convenient to you. We ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes. And state your name for the record when you first come up. And if it's difficult to spell, then help the court recorder out by spelling it for her. MR. JENKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Jenkins. I am a resident of section 25. And I'm sitting here and I appreciate the questions I've heard today, because it's many of our concerns. One big concern I have is that I think in addition to the people to the west you've got people to the east and north of this within close proximity. Actually, if you want to know where I live, ifit shows, it won't, but the northeast corner that's cut out, those 40 acres, there's four houses right there. So we're very close to this and very concerned about it. I'd like to start by saying that there have been some things that I think are very true. The landfill operation has improved tremendously from what it was a few years ago when we couldn't stand to open our windows. And I compliment -- I'm not saying that sarcastically, I compliment the people for the job they've done on it. At the present time with the mountains we have south of us, the equipment up on top of the hills, we hear the beepers now. My concern comes to be when this is moved closer -- and I'm not talking Page 48 May 21,2009 about the landfill hills now, but we still have the same issue with equipment, with beepers -- it gets closer to our area. I enjoy being able to open my windows when it's the pleasant time of the year. I don't want to be forced to keep my house closed up because of the noise that's going to be there continually. I realize that recycling is a necessary thing. I would first of all question why we're here today. I fought this issue two times already with both times the county commission agreeing and promising the residents it would not -- the landfill would not be expanded onto the new acres we're talking about today . We can playa word semantic game and say it's not a landfill. This is part of the landfill operation. The public has been promised twice it would not be moved north. We're here again today. If you recall, after the last rounds of discussions on this, it was opened up to make it an A TV park, possibly a public golf course, and here we are with a landfill expansion. I guess at some point I'm going to lose and accept I'm going to live in a dump. And I don't envision that. I'm a lifetime Collier County-an. I've lived in the present place for over 23 years. And if this does come to be, which I am opposed to expanding it north, I would ask for the same considerations you just discussed for the people to the west of us. 200 feet of woods is not going to stop the noise I'm going to have to live with. In addition to me as a retired letter carrier, lived in this area, delivered mail in this area, you've got anywhere from I'm going to estimate conservatively around 300 families and homes to the east and north of this, within a mile of it. I guess one of the things that kind of amused me in hearing this, the county had the opportunity when they created the Growth Management Plan to exempt themselves from totally clearing an area. I don't have that luxury. I wish I had been able to sit in on this and exempt myself from it, but I don't think my neighbors would have Page 49 May 21,2009 liked it. And as a neighbor to this, I don't like it. The biggest concern I have is the sound, as many of you discussed. And I appreciate that -- I do hope you'll consider some kind of a more barrier for the people that live around it. So far as the -- I had to laugh, and I know I've got a neighbor that's going to tell you more about it, the idea that the environmental studies, there's no panthers around, yet I've got a neighbor next to me that property backs up to the county line that has lost, I believe, three different animals to panthers in the last three years. So the more we destroy the natural woods, yeah, we're going to lose some. As a hunter, I have to laugh at the panther issue to start with. It depends on whose favor it's in as to how we discuss the panther. He's been made a scapegoat and it's terrible the way he's been misused. But there are wildlife in the area. I have deer in my front yard daily. I do -- again, I'm saying I'm not in favor of this, but if it does come to it do we need such a large spread-out facility? Shouldn't it be concentrated more into the middle and the bottom area? I'm sorry, I could not tell from the other discussion, apparently some parcel has been in negotiating to be sold from a member of the public. I don't know which one that is. I see a couple of shaded areas, but I don't know which one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the little yellow one towards the south. Towards the bottom of the page, the little square yellow one, the smallest square yellow one. MR. JENKINS: Okay, thank you very much for that. In summation, I'd just like to finish up by reminding you, this item came up for your discussion two weeks ago. There were many more residents from the east side of it that were here. Unfortunately we can't keep taking time off from work to come, to have something postponed. Sometimes it's a legal thing. But a lot more people would be voicing their opinions today if it had been heard when it was Page 50 May 21,2009 supposed to be. And thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray -- hold on a second, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jenkins, could you wait just a minute? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it's possible for you to do it, if you take the hand mic, could you point to us on the plan here? See this -- see that -- no, sir, right down there. MR. JENKINS: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just put your -- where you live. MR. JENKINS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to need -- Ray, would you give him the mic so -- MR. JENKINS: If you see this section that was blocked out, boxed around right here, this is Jenkins Way that comes down here. Garland Road runs down this way. I'm nervous, I'm sorry. But that's a 40-acre parcel you're looking at. There's four houses in here. There's another house just to the east of there. There's another house right on the other side of Jenkins Way. There's numerous houses on the other side of Garland Road. I recently had to get with my neighbors to collect money for trying to resurface. It was a private -- we do our own private maintained road back in there. I contacted over 26 families for resurfacing Garland Road. So there -- 26 may not sound like a big number to you, but 26 people that are going to be adversely impacted IS wrong. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And may I understand, you said you were able to see the hills? MR. JENKINS: No, I don't physically see them from my place, because right now I'm about a half a mile from the landfill. Page 51 May 21,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wondered about that when you said that. Now -- and do you hear the activity going on? MR. JENKINS: That was my reference, sir. The hills, the height of them, where I don't -- I've got trees in front of me and neighbors to the south of me, a lot of woods in there. We don't physically see the landfill unless you drive down to the very south end of Garland Road. But because of the height of it and the machinery working out there covering up the landfill materials, that sound travels. And we hear beepers beeping now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's during the day. You -- MR. JENKINS: Yes, sir, during their normal operation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you ever hear anything during the evening? MR. JENKINS: No, I don't. As the gentleman said, I think their landfill operation shuts down around 5:00 p.m. In the evening there is not that noise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if this additional place that we're talking about would not to go forward, you would still continue to hear those beeps? MR. JENKINS: I would hear them. They're not a big nuisance to me because like I said, they're a half a mile from me. I can envision what it's going to be like 600 feet from me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you so much. MR. JENKINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, want to call our next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Steve Sistrunk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can use that mic right there, sir, if you'd like. It would save you a trip over there. MR. SISTRUNK: For the record, my name is Steve Sistrunk. That's S-I-S-T-R-U-N-K. I live at 2600 Jenkins Way. Mr. Jenkins' neighbor, as a matter of fact. Page 52 May 21,2009 I'm here to oppose very strong opposition. Number one, we always hear not in my backyard. This is my backyard. I step over my property line, I am on the -- what is proposed the recycle plant. The land values out there have gone up and down like everywhere else. We all knew the dump was there when we bought. We were promised, as Mr. Jenkins said, by the county commission that there would not be expansion. And here we are back with the expansion problem again. We've learned to live with the dump. The dump has been a very good neighbor to us where it's at now. They have done a very good job with the smell, they have been very good with the noise regulations. But now we're creeping in to what is literally my backyard. Through all the process I know with the state, we are on the rural fringe agricultural overlay, one house per 40 acres. Does that decrease my value? Yes. Does it enhance our living? Yes. Because we're all out there because we love the rural environment. But when it comes time to sell, if we were ever in a financial, we don't have the ability to sell off part of our property to keep our house, as in the tough economic times come. Now what we want to do is decrease my property value more because now we're going to have a dump literally in my backyard. The dump is going to be there. So how much more burden does the county want to put on us because of what we all agree is a very needed and a very good purpose of having the recyclable plant? And the arguments have always been, oh, the recycle, we need to recycle. Yes, we need to recycle, yes, we need to do all these things. Do we need to do it on such an expanded area of property? Can we not condense it? Can we not put it on the present facility? Can we downsize it? You know, as we've even witnessed today even, the growth of Page 53 May 21,2009 the county has definitely got the brakes put on, and nobody can see the future, but we don't see it as in what we've gone through in the last 10 years is what we're going to be going through the next 10 years. So maybe, you know, let's do this in a smaller stage. I'm not the type to say okay, you know, we have a shot at winning this. I don't believe we do. I don't believe we have a shot at stopping the process here. What I do hope that you all hold in your decisions is maybe limiting to where we go now. Can we do it in a smaller scale, can we do it with less impact on us. The neighborhood that Mr. Jenkins was speaking about with the environmental issues with the panthers, I don't know who did the environmental study, but they sure didn't come to my backyard. We've had three goats killed by panthers, confirmed by FWC. I mean, we've had all the studies, everything's been, you know, confirmed that there's been, you know, a panther in the area over the last three years. We've got the red headed woodpecker that has been such a beginning stink, I see him flying around my backyard every day. You know, I mean, it's not an issue that they say it's not there; it is there. The gopher turtle issue, in my backyard, gopher turtles, you know what I mean? So I don't know where the study came from and how it got to say that there is no environmental issues. There are environmental issues there. I don't see, you know, how if I wanted to do something I've got to, you know, jump all the hurdles to prove a lot of environmental issues. It seems like if the county wanted to do something that they do their study and okay, it's over. It's very hard as a citizen to have to deal with that. And I'm a firefighter, I know how bureaucracy works, I know how the system works. And it's frustrating to a lot of us as citizens to see, you know, how -- we perceive that we get trampled on when we really don't have a say-so. Page 54 May 21,2009 And like I said, I'm a realist. I understand, you know, that this is a logical place for the expansion, you know, to put this. But what I really would hope is that you all could maybe slow things down, condense it and agree to maybe a smaller package for now with maybe in a 20-year plan go further out and expand it. The well issue. The county's deep wells -- two feet over my back corner is one of the new county wells. Very deep, very, you know, protected well, because we're down in the Hawthorne aquifer. We're 25 feet. Now, my well's not protected by any of the depth they have in protection. If there's any type of runoff, it's in my water system. It's the water we drink, it's the water we shower with. You know, that is a very major concern for us. And I know there'll be study after study saying no, it won't affect it. But if you lived there, would you like to have, you know, the recycle hazardous plant 600 feet, 300 feet, 200 feet, you know, off the back side of your house where your well is? That's what we're dealing with. You know, and there's never a hope that we're ever going to have city water. You know, that's a pipe dream. So it's not a reality to say well, you know, we can do that. It's we are on a well, we will always be on a well. A guarantee for preserve. They've done a very good job in designing this. I give them all kinds of credits for trying to make it neighbor friendly. But as we are -- here again, you know, what guarantee do we have that, you know, they're going to come in for another conditional use and take over part of the preserve that is going to be a buffer? You know, there's no guarantees on that. We were guaranteed that the dump wasn't going to expand. We're here. What guarantee do we have that they're going to say well, in two years, six months from now they say, oh, we need to do this, this and this and we're going to change the outlay and now what is preserve land is not preserved. Page 55 May 21,2009 There's no guarantee that's solid, I understand that. But you all have the ability to at least make it more concrete, if this does pass, to put the recommendation in that the existing preserve is either expanded or can never be used as another expansion proj ect to where we don't have to keep facing the same issues again. And with that, I thank you very much for your time. I know some of you all live out in the Estates and you understand the rural lifestyle that we all have. And that's why we're there. Please try to protect us. You know, we're a small handful but, you know, to us we're an important handful. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One comment, sir. MR. SISTRUNK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The comment you made about the preserves, this particular proj ect came through as an amendment to the Growth Management Plan a while back. It was that plan that locked in the percentage of preserves they have to have. They cannot change that. They're right at within one-tenth of the minimum needed, meaning they couldn't walk into that preserve and put another piece of asphalt down or another element without going through a much more belabored process than what you see here today. That would mean a Growth Management Plan change, as well as any other changes that they have to go through normally. I'm not saying that can't be done, but that's -- MR. SISTRUNK: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- about as impossible to do as anything we could enforce. So I don't know of any stronger criteria for that. Nothing we could say today would override that capability -- MR. SISTRUNK: Right, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so you already have that, at least as far as the preserve go. MR. SISTRUNK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 56 May 21,2009 Before you call the next speaker, Ray, Cherie', are you good until we finish with public speakers and then we'll take a break? Is that okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one more, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The last speaker is Kay Kluever. MS. KLUEVER: I'm Kay Kluever. K-L-U-E-V-E-R. Not with a C as it sounds like. I'm a property owner on Garland Road. And I must be getting really old, because the moral code has certainly changed. I was raised to believe in God, live by the Golden Rule and believed that a man was only as good as his word. God is being taken out of our lives for the government. People do not have respect for other people's property, nor care how they harm them. However, they want to have for themselves what is not theirs to have. Lastly, we as property owners were promised by Collier County Commissioners that the landfill would not be expanded to the north, as we had proven what an environmental disaster it would create. When we objected at the meeting at the Golden Gate Community Center, Mr. Rodriguez from the Solid Waste Management Department responded by saying that it was a park. It is an expansion of the solid waste park. The only difference is what is handled. We as a neighborhood are totally frustrated, as everything seems to be a done deal. Our words are not respected. In fact, they're just sloughed off, as though we had nothing to say about it. What we are saying is true. We live there, we're educated people, and we know what is going on. We know how fragile the area is and how it is being destroyed by the county. Weare aware that the county has the ability to go ahead, no matter what, and use whatever they want for whatever they want, no matter what. But this is such a travesty. This is wetlands that the wildlife has Page 57 May 21,2009 always claimed to have, just fragile creatures as the cockaded woodpecker and the panther territory. Yet the plans are to build it up three to four feet above grade, which will create neighboring properties to be flooded during our rainy season. Oh, they're planning on an unlined retention pond that is lined up perfectly to overflow into the main canal when we get our tropical rains and storms. That lake will be contaminated with the runoff from all of the hazardous waste that they are storing there and will contaminate the canals and the water supply for Collier County. Our well water has already been ruined by the county's use of injection wells which are already on this same property. It has cost me thousands of additional dollars to try to get water that's usable. I'm still working on it, as the latest attempt has not worked. The neighbors are very much concerned about the noise solution as well. A noise buffer was not considered originally, however, I understand they're talking about planting a stand of trees to block the noise. That will not do a lot for the noise of the tub grinder. The way we have been told that they're planning on operating it will certainly take away the peacefulness of the neighborhood. The Hideout Golf Course is concerned about the disturbance of the noise for their members playing golf. They pay a lot of the money for the solitude and the getaway from the noise of the city life. They certainly do not want to be listening to trucks and tub grinders. This is not a plea for not in my backyard. We as a community of Golden Gate residents have already proved our case to the county commission. We were promised a park, golf course or something that could be used for the benefit of the community recreation. We cannot understand why they keep wanting to go north to this most fragile land. The land to the east is not as fragile as this area and would serve the purpose better. Roads are already there and you would not have to be putting in a bridge -- which they have now canceled that, but I wrote this two weeks ago. Page 58 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us where you live in relationship to the park? MS. KLUEVER: Right there about where the 2,400 is on there. That cleared area, I have 25 acres there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. And that's the last public speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take a break until 10:25 and then we'll resume and then we'll finish up at that point. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Cherie's rested and she's given us the ability to proceed now. So with that in mind we left off on public comment, we had our last public comment. Generally after public comment the applicant can have a time to kind of either rebut or agree that the public's all right and they don't want to ever proceed again and whatever options they would like. So Bob? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Just a couple of comments in response to the public comments. The reference to listed species. Following the protocols of an EIS there are site visits. And the only intent -- and if I gave any misperception, I'll clear that up right now. The only intent of my statement was that when the ecologist was on-site, they did not physically see those listed species that I referenced. It does not mean that this is not panther habitat. It does not mean that they do not have to mitigate for impacts to panthers. They will have to mitigate for that, as well as any impacts for wetlands through the jurisdictional process. So I just wanted to clarify that. I guess with respect to what I perceive to be the concerns of the residents -- a number of the residents comments, and also the Planning Commission, with respect to the buffering adjacent to the west of the Page 59 May 21,2009 project and the south where the lakes are, we'd like to offer -- we'd like to offer that we would between now and the next meeting go back and redesign this to provide for one of two options: Either a two -- and the preferred option would be a 200- foot wide preserve area adjacent to that western boundary. So we would reconfigure the lake, shift the lake over and provide for a 200- foot preserve boundary. That would increase our preserve areas somewhat. Also, with gaining that out-parcel, we'll have to reconfigure our acreage, and half of that acreage would also need to be added to preserve, because 50 percent is the preserve requirement. The other alternative would be if there were some design limitations when we go back and do this, we'd like the opportunity also to look at a 35-foot landscape buffer with a berm and wall combination. That's certainly not our preferred, and I don't think that that's anyone's preference, but we do feel like we need the option to at least look at that, and then we would come back to you with hopefully the 200- foot wide preserve area, which would provide a more significant buffer. And I think that there is room to redesign it in that respect and we feel pretty confident we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I had a quick question. I mean, Brad does too, but I want to kind of summarize something so I understand the parameters. This total project area -- let's forget the two and a quarter acres you just recently purchased. MR. MULHERE: 341 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever it is. It's 341 acres. Your preserve area right now is half of that, 170. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you've got 170 usable acres. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And out of the 170 usable acres 42 acres Page 60 May 21,2009 of that is stormwater management. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings you down to about 130. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you have utility supply and easements for the water wells, that's eight acres, so that's about 120. And then you've got -- out of the 120, you have a yard waste and storm debris processing area that I understand is only being used during emergencies when we have a lot of storm debris from hurricanes or something like that; is that true? MR. MULHERE: It's not only being used for that. The majority of that land would be used for that. There is a -- that is where the yard -- a yard waste and storm debris processing is going to occur. So a portion of that, I don't know how much acreage, maybe Dan could talk, I don't know if it's 10, 20 acres, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to know. MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director. Actually, that will be the area for processing horticulture waste that we currently do at the landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many acres does that take up? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That currently takes up about 10 acres. But as we continue to bring on new processes, the county may get into composting the material, turning it into useable soil for -- to maybe possibly give back to the taxpayers. MR. MULHERE: But it's still very low intensity use. I mean, it's just sort of sitting there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, I just want to understand it. So let's say if you expand that and the most you do is another 20 acres there, so out of 120 usable acres you're going to end up with leaving 50 areas of that area for future debris collection from Page 61 May 21,2009 hurricanes. And that leaves you about 70 active acres that you're using out of 341. Is that a close assumption? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think that's accurate. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I wanted to understand the magnitude of your impact. So out of 341 acres, you're really impacting around 70 acres as intense uses, and the rest are different and varied uses. Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bob, what I'd like to do is talk you out of your plan B. I mean, these people moved out there in the neighbors (sic) to live in the woods -- MR. MULHERE: You mean the 35-foot? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, and to build a wall, first of all, it's expensive. You can redesign this site plan. And don't waste time with two options, just put the 200 feet in there and make it work, okay? I think you can do it. MR. MULHERE: It appears to me that we can redesign that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I would move it. And that word, I say leachate. What is that -- how do you pronounce that properly, you have gas and it's L-E-C-H -- MR. MULHERE: Leachate? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Leachate? I mean, that would be better flipped on the other side of the road, and stuff like that you can easily lay this out. MR. MULHERE: Okay, we will work on redesigning that and coming back to you in the -- I guess two weeks, whenever your next regular scheduled meeting is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, you'd want to come back on a consent agenda? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So we have to be very specific in Page 62 May 21,2009 what we stipulate here today so that when it comes back on consent we're dealing with it as a consent item, not as a revote. Mr. Wolfley, and then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let Mr. Midney go first. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mine is very brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What was the two-week postponement for this due to? MR. MULHERE: It was to allow us an opportunity to negotiate with the end holder to acquire that -- or come to an agreement to acquire that parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The first thing I did my first year of engineering school, I happened to have designed and worked for about a year on a technical paper regarding waste recycling. And I think that this is a good idea because I think that mountain that is currently there is going to decrease in height due to the fact we're not going to be putting as much refuse there, it's going to be used as recycled goods. And with that, if it's the pleasure of the board here, I would like to make a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, we're not even done with -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're not done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to close the public hearing, we have to have discussion, and then we'll entertain a -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought it were closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're still in -- the applicant was doing rebuttal. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see. MR. MULHERE: I really think that -- I don't have anything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions for the applicant? Page 63 May 21,2009 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, for Mr. Rodriguez. I want you just to respond to the people who have come here today and feel that promises were not being kept to them by the county -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. In reference to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for this expansion. So I just want you to address that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. First of all I'd like to say thank you to all the residents that have come out to hear. We truly appreciate your input. And as being good neighbors and not just saying that as a government saying to be good neighbors, we look at our relationships with the neighbors at the landfill as a marriage. Every day we have to come and work together next to each other, and it's a long-term commitment. As long as the landfill's there we will always be neighbors. So anything that impacts you negatively, we take it very seriously, you know, as the Board of County Commissioners did 10 years ago. We will implement the policies. As far as the board's intent 10 years ago, I've read the transcripts. It was specific they were not going to expand the landfill. And that was clearly outlined in the LDC. The landfill is not moving off of the property to the north. What we're asking to do is -- what the board has laid down is to develop the property for recycling activities. And at any opportunity you're more than welcome to come to the landfill, see our operation, see the activity of the Waste Management. They have a life of site contract with the county . We put very high demands on them. They're required to be safe. They're required to have no odor and limit the noise so that we stay within policy. And at any opportunity that you feel that we're not being good neighbors, I encourage you to contact us. And as you always do, and Page 64 May 21,2009 we encourage that as well, you contact your commissioners, and they're very responsive. Absolutely. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the next thing is, there is going to be required off-site mitigation for you both for wetland impacts and panther impacts. Will those -- will that mitigation happen in Collier County? MS. ZIMMERMAN: Sue Zimmerman, Collier County Real Property Management. At the present time we are investigating doing either banking or purchasing property . We do own currently property to the east/northeast that we're looking into as a potential mitigation area that we can work with either Conservation Collier, possibly, or some other agency to do mitigation within the county itself. Otherwise, we will look to banking, purchasing credits from a mitigation bank. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's important that the mitigation happen in the county. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there was a young lady who spoke to the concern of her well water. And I know Paul Mattausch is here. I would think that it would be important for her to understand or for him to tell us whether or not her concern is very senous. MR. MATT AUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, Director of the Collier County Water Department. There was a concern raised about injection wells detrimentally impacting quality of groundwater and wells in the area. I laid a pen on the map there. There are only two deep injection wells anywhere in the vicinity. Those two wells are located at the south end of the south county regional water treatment plant. The reason for those injection wells is for the deep injection of the concentrate stream from the reverse osmosis water treatment plant. That water is injected approximately 3,100 feet deep in the ground. Page 65 May 21,2009 Between the surficial aquifer and the lower Tamiami aquifer, which is where the freshwater exists in Collier County, there are several aquatards or impervious layers between the surficial aquifer, the freshwater and where we are injecting the reject water from the reverse osmosis water treatment process. So the -- that water that we are injecting in no way impacts the freshwater resources there in the area. And in fact, the Department of Environmental Protection requires us to submit routinely monitoring of the aquifer immediately above our injection zone to ensure that we have absolutely no impact even on the brackish aquifers that are located immediately above the injection zone. So I hope that I answered that question. I would be glad to answer any questions regarding the impacts on groundwater in the area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I thought it was very important for the young lady to understand that that in no way can impact directly on her water. And she may have other issues that she needs to attend to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mattausch, I didn't hear the word injection well come up in her discussion with this panel. I thought she was concerned about the runoff from the proposed facilities, including -- and I think she mentioned hazardous waste and other things that were happening at the proposed site that you're talking about, not one a half a mile away. Her well, having a shallow well, I think she was concerned about water contamination from runoff from this site getting into the shallow aquifer and contaminating her well, because it's only 25 feet deep. So were you -- I know you responded to something, but I didn't hear that question raised. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah, the third public speaker raised the issue of the inj ection wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any injection wells on this Page 66 May 21,2009 site? MR. MATTAUSCH: On-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's on the screen right now, are there any injection wells on that site? MR. MATTAUSCH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there -- do you want to explain if there's any possible water contamination from this site. Can you just -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record. MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director. To have an understanding of a landfill permit, there are very strict regulations. Every quarter FDEP comes down to our site. Majority of the time it's unannounced, and they do inspections. Additionally, we provide reports to them quarterly of monitoring wells throughout the facility. In the perimeter, through the center, around the cells. This -- the Resource Recovery Park will have the same requirements. We will have the necessary infrastructure to ensure that we contain any materials that mayor may not spill. But I can tell you, from our current activities we don't have those issues. We don't have gasoline spilling on the ground, we don't have oil spilling or paint, things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I concur with that. I use your hazardous facilities, and I can tell you, your hazardous facilities are impeccable. So I -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: And we'll have all the appropriate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- commend you for that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- berms. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your monitoring wells, though, in order to get keep the public's concerns at bay, do you have any monitoring Page 67 May 21,2009 wells along your northeast perimeter property lines? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We do at the landfill, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to be putting in any to monitor this facility? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you use a benchmark to start with? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it the current -- the first day, or is it past years -- what's your benchmark? When do you set your benchmark, the day you go in and put the monitoring well down before anything hits the site? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know how -- you had just talked about working with your neighbors. You might want to get together with the people that spoke and provide them at some time in the future the benchmark contaminants and then that level that's reached after a year or two in operation or however often you monitor your wells so that they can rest assured that you're not contributing any further to any degradation of their water quality. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And as part of an additional measure we work closely with the Pollution Control Department who actually lays out the protocols for us. Absolutely. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chair, can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. MULHERE: Could I just -- is that on? Yeah, okay. Bob Mulhere for the record. I just wanted to bring to your attention a couple of items that we had a discussion in the back of the room about with the staff. We're going to be constrained to not change the existing preserve, because if we did we would be required to resubmit an EIS and probably go back to the EAC. I'm not sure about that, because I Page 68 May 21,2009 kind of think the Board of County Commissioners could do that without sending us back there. But that's basically what the discussion was about. Having said that, this then will be additional area. But we can add, we just can't change or reconfigure or reduce the preserve, you follow me? So we're going to have to put another acre and a half of preserve as a result of acquiring this -- an acre and a quarter preserve as a result of acquiring this two and a half acre parcel. Which we agreed in talking to staff we could probably accommodate that in this area here. So some of that will be preserve. The balance of it we'll probably just call a buffer. Still be 200-foot wide, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you could call it preserve because you can add to, you just can't take away, right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but the problem there is trying to cross it for connection to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, your preserve in that location would stop at 31st Street right-of-way, then start again on the south side -- MR. MULHERE: No, I know. But what I'm saying is we need to put a discharge across the preserve from the lake, which will be here, to the canal. And from what I'm being told, we couldn't do that if it was preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you ironed it out as an easement when you created the preserve. MR. MULHERE: I'm just saying, we may want to just call it a buffer. It won't matter. We won't add it to our preserve acreage, we won't touch it. It will function the same way, but we'll be able to -_ I'm just saying we have to figure that detail out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think you need to with staff before it gets here because -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the expressing -- well, I heard Page 69 May 21,2009 specifically the concern that they're worried about some of these preserves going away in the future. The GMP restricts you to 50 percent. We're asking you, by adding 200 feet now to probably create more than what you're required to do by the GMP. We would hate to see you now come back and be able to remove that without -- because it is effectively inconsistent with the GMP at that point. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm glad you raised that. Because although the GMP is a difficult process to change, too, I think we're required to put a conservation easement in perpetuity over the preserve area. So that's even more difficult to change than the compo plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But between now and consent-- MR. MULHERE: I understand, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you need to find a solution to the-- how you're going to -- what you're going to call that 200 feet. MR. MULHERE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for understanding, Bob, what you're saying is that, you know, these are conceptual plans. You couldn't vary the preserve boundary in the slightest? In other words, just come around and chisel off -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think we could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think you can. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think we can do that. MS. ARAQUE: Staff agreed that minor changes are not going to be an issue that would require them to have to go back to EAC. Sorry, Summer Araque for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because like in the center of the site, I could imagine some of that raising up and keeping you the same area. The intent is not to take your area of development, the intent __ Page 70 May 21,2009 MR. MULHERE: No, I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is to protect the neighbors -- MR. MULHERE: Actually to add more in this case. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will add more area? MR. MULHERE: Add more preserve area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but I'm saying, the intent is not to remove developable area, it's just to reposition preserve. MR. MULHERE: Well, I know that was the intent, but then we had this discussion. So we'll -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But slightly slivered. Take 10 percent, sliver it around -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we can do it. I did want to just put on the record that the site plan that I showed you that we had the discussion about, Commissioner Caron, does show the relocated hazardous waste material site. From the original one that was in your plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: I can't read this. So this is the new plan? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is the new plan -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- which we don't have here. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. But we will use that plan when you reconfigure it, and so you will have it. COMMISSIONER CARON: So just tell me, because I can't read this, still the small lake, closest to that is still administration. What's this next box over that goes all the way from the -- what does it say? You can't read it either. MR. MULHERE: And I can't read it. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, that's the material recovery facility __ MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah, that we discussed. MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- for future recycling. Page 71 May 21,2009 MR. MULHERE: That didn't change. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. MULHERE: That didn't change. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, yes, it did, because it goes -- MR. MULHERE: All the way up, right, it goes all the way up. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the typical space. And then the next is still white goods and tires and hazardous waste -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- right? And then everything else remains the same. MR. MULHERE: Everything else was the same, correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, just for the record, you've added that small two and a half acre site in, but do all the studies cover that? For example, there couldn't be a panther clubhouse on top of a burial mound there, could there? MR. MULHERE: No, I think we're okay there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any more questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we will close the public hearing. And before we entertain a motion, we need to have discussion. And Bob, we may need to get your comment as we go through some of these items. I have a list. I can read it if the commission so desires. The first one would be no permanent access on 31 st Street, but a temporary access only upon a declared emergency through a FEMA directive. Page 72 May 21,2009 Number two, staff recommendations would be included, with the exception of number six and number nine. Number nine has the -- dealing with the EAC SDP and number six is the one Kay said wasn't necessary anymore. Number three, they would retain the same hours of operation of the landfill. Number four, they would include the 2.75-acre site that they -- as part of this project; incorporate that in for a consent agenda review. Number five, all recycling processing machinery will be located in closed buildings. Number six, all individual site designs will incorporate drive-through designs as much as possible to minimize backups. Number seven, they will retain a 200- foot preserve buffer along the western edge of the property. Minimum 200. And that just applies to all the western edge, it doesn't have to be defined as to where it starts and stops now. And number eight, they'll modify the site plan pursuant to the real plan that they presented today, along with the changes made for the consent agenda review. Now, is there any comments to those? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I wanted to add one. And that's what I was going to do with my recommendation, if I'm allowed to do so. That in the yard waste and storm debris area, if any processing or crushing, whatever you do with that waste, could be done on the south end, whereas it would be piled on the north end and then processed on the south end, that would buffer much of the noise to the neighbors to the north. That was going to be my only other recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Is it about his remediation, Page 73 May 21,2009 or are you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish that first. Bob? MR. MULHERE: I didn't catch all of that because I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's suggesting that if you have any processing operation involving the yard waste, that it stays on the south side of that the site, not to the north. MR. MULHERE: You mean -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So that the piles that's brought in quite quickly is on the north side of that 72 acres, and the processing be done on the landfill side. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director. Where it's applicable, we will move the staging areas for debris to the north side. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right. And the processing to the south side, which would be closest to the road. MR. RODRIGUEZ: And that's probably the most practical place to locate that operation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: We did have another question on your one condition, which is I think number five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish up this one so we get it worded right. Under the yard waste processing, it will be as much as possible to the south side, but with the staging to the north side, okay? Does that summarize it? Good. Now Bob, what were you saying? MR. MULHERE: On number five, all machinery will be located inside an enclosed building. We're talking process machinery. Right now there are grinders that operate outside for recycling purposes. Page 74 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is whatever -- and Mr. Rodriguez, it was what you said at the meeting. And I -- Mr. Rodriguez commented that the recycling processing would be located in a closed building setting (inside abuilding.) MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. As it related to the MRF, material recovery facility. Again, I was being specific to that function. It would not be reasonable to have our grinding machines, our processing machines housed indoors when they may be temporary due to an event, or if we're recycling white goods. But the actual processing of the recyclables, turning them into a reusable material, something different than what they came in as, yes, those would be enclosed. CI-IAIRMAN STRAIN: You said earlier, though, you could hire a vendor, and some vendors do it in the open and some vendors do it inside buildings. What were you referring to when you made that comment? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, it depends on the technology and what they're recycling. For instance, if you're recycling tires, you have equipment that actually separates the rims from the tires, then you have another machine that actually chops up the tires, and then you have machines that bails the tires, things like that, get it ready for transportation. We may get a vendor that comes in that has a whole new system that does it all at once. You put it on a conveyor belt, it goes into a big box and it comes out, you know, a big square cube of reusable rubber. It just depends on the application, the technology. What we don't want to do is limit the opportunity for the county to take advantage of many of these new emerging technologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any problem with the incorporating to the greatest extent possible the design regarding the no -- minimizing backups, doing turnarounds inside all those areas Page 75 May 21,2009 where you're going to have dropoff points and things like that so we can minimize traffic backup? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. Your recommendations to include access, horseshoe access, things like that, absolutely. It's more advantageous to us. Any time a vehicle backs up, we have a safety factor involved. But I need to make perfectly clear that we don't want to water down the safety measure of removing those backup alarms, things like that. Because we have had accidents. MR. MULHERE: We can design to minimize backing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand what you've clarified. Does everybody else? Mr. Schiffer, do you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my question was number five. Because I don't think that's really reasonable. But are we going to leave it where some of these -- and you might want to specify what areas can have exterior, what areas can't. I mean, obviously in a storm event there's a lot of machinery all over the place that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think the way he's defined it is that the processing of the materials inside buildings, if they have a tub grinder or something like that that has to be outside, that's not the processing of material, that's preparing the material for processing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if we're chipping up a tree or grinding a refrigerator, that does not have to be indoors? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's what they're saying. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how it technically could be. I think the backup horns was a big issue because they're sharp and they have a long-distant sound. And if we can cure that problem Page 76 May 21,2009 to a great extent by this stipulation, that certainly helps. Anyway, is there any other stipulations or comments from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion then? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I'd like to recommend to the Planning Commission to forward Petition CU-08-AR-13245 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval, subject to the conditions set forth just previously discussed by the Chair. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made by Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Murray. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I want to add is a comment. The fact that this property has been bought over periods of time for this use, it's inevitable it's going to be used for some connection to the landfill. The best we can hope to do is for is make sure that whatever use is there, minimize its impacts on the neighborhood through the designs, through the buffers, through the noise containment. We've tried to do that today. It's the best opportunity I think we have at this point, and so I'm going to be voting in favor. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying, by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 77 May 21,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you all for attending. In two weeks it comes back on what's called the consent agenda. It's not a time for debate, it's simply acknowledging that staff got our stipulations correct and the final plan reflects what we said. And from there it goes on to the Board of County Commissioners, which I believe is going to be sometime in July? MR. MULHERE: We're hoping July, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're hoping July. And that's where the final vote will be taking place. Ours is a recommendation to them. And with that, we will move on to the next -- thank you everyone for attending on that issue. Oh, you have conditional use forms somewhere in your packet, if you can find them. We need to send those on to Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Where did you find it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the record, everybody, so be careful. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS CAHIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on today's agenda is not a hearing presented by an applicant, but a discussion of the boat dock extension review criteria. And to bring everybody up to speed on why we're here on this Page 78 May 21,2009 issue today, a project came through a while back, I believe it was called the Monte Carlo boat dock request. They had requested an extension in Vanderbilt Beach. During our discussion -- there was a lot of discussion, and we found there was some inconsistency between the way staff was looking at the primary and secondary criteria and the way the County Attorney at the time indicated to us may apply in other elements of the LDC. And we've asked staff and the County Attorney's Office to get together, come back and clarify the issue, as has the Board of County Commissioners. And today's discussion is focused on that clarification, and that's where we should be focusing our discussion. So with that, I know we have a memo passed out by Susan Istenes. I guess we'll turn to, I don't know, Ray or who's handling it for who, or Jeff, and see if you guys have come to a meeting of the minds. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the Zoning Manager. Susan has asked me to fill in for her today on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you pull that mic. a little closer to you, Ray. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Susan asked me to fill in for her today on this item. Basically we met with the County Attorney's Office to make sure we were clear on the criteria. And the memorandum reflects the results of those meetings. Basically the criteria outlined in the LDC, the four out of five primary and the four out of six secondary criteria is what the Planning Commission and staff should be looking at and making their recommendations based on that criteria. However, if there is an overriding health, safety, welfare issue determined by the Planning Commission, that can be used and hopefully in relation to one of the criteria to -- if it's different from a Page 79 May 21,2009 staff recommendation, you can make your own recommendation, based on health and safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think it WOULD be best to explain to us what you mean by that by an example. And I know I've heard Mr. Klatzkow use numerous examples as to how one point, even if it fails to meet the one point, it's so abhorrent maybe we don't want that one, maybe we still wouldn't see our way to find approval. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if you go through the primary criteria, for example, let's see, C says that whether the proposed dock facility has an inverse (sic) impact on navigation. And I think if you find it's going to have an adverse impact on navigation, just based on that single criteria alone you could deny the petition, all right? There's another one where the proposed dock facility protrudes more than 25 percent to the width. And if you're saying well, we think that the public safety in this instance requires that you stay within that 25 percent of the waterway boundary, you can deny it on that case. So going through the criteria, if you believe one of the criteria is such that it impacts the public health and safety, you can vote against it based on that one criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: If they meet everything else. Ifit's impacting public health and safety, that's the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see now, when we make a negative finding, attached to that negative finding we have to explain ourselves. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the case of the 25-foot extension in 100- foot waterway, we felt that that was too much, even though it was only one of the criteria. And we thought there was a public safety and welfare issue and -- for reason for denial. How detailed or how acknowledged do we have to know that public safety and welfare issue as being stated? Is it just a feeling we have or do we have to have some kind of expert proof? Or where are Page 80 May 21,2009 we with that? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're going to have testimony, you're going to have a staff report. You're going to -- I mean, there's a public hearing process. You're going to have a lot of information before you, and then you make a finding. You may say that, you know, based on what I've heard it's my finding that this negatively impacts the public health and safety because it intrudes more than 25 percent or it's impotent to navigation or whatever other issue there might be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Klatzkow, suppose someone well intended considers that a health, welfare -- health, safety and welfare matters concerns -- are concerned with size of boats in a given area or number of boats in a total area. Is that justifiable as a basis as a determination made by an individual, absent any probable evidence that would be presented? MR. KLATZKOW: Staff and I had that discussion. And one of the problems we had was we really don't know why we have a 20-foot dock requirement anyway, all right? And my staff went through the history of this and it goes back decades. And we can't figure out why we even did this. We're not going to impose our belief on why this was, we're simply going to say that if you think that increasing the dock more than 20 feet into the waterway in and of itself impacts public health and safety, you can deny it. If you don't think it impacts public health and safety, then you go by the regular criteria. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't think you answered the question I asked, but I'll try once more. In other words, if someone well intended on the board thought that there were too many boats in a given area and they thought of that as being a safety issue, would that be grounds? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Because everybody's entitled to a dock. Page 81 May 21,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's just a question of20 feet. MR. KLATZKOW: It's just a question of20 feet, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's an important factor I think. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? We're going to have some public speakers too, so we're going to get their input before we wrap this up. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeff, I guess the big thing is is the scorecard method. One thing I did find when looking back, in the recodification this one sentence was dropped in the extension criteria. And it said that the Planning Commission shall base its decision -- it shall base its decision -- for approval, approval with conditions or denial on an evaluation of the following primary and secondary criteria. So doesn't that essentially say we stay within that criteria? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you stay within the criteria. But what I'm saying is as you're going through the criteria, all right, if one of them jumps off the page on you impacting public health and safety, that's in and of itself enough reason to justify your vote for no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in the scorecard method we would say no to that criteria. What you're saying, though, is that one criteria could be such a bad no that that would be the reason why you could overrule -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a positive score on their scorecard. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you would be able to state that that one is -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. An example I give is you've got a 100-foot waterway and you want to put one out 70 feet, you know. Page 82 May 21,2009 And it's -- you know, it may only impact one of the criteria, but it's enough for you to say no. It's impotent to navigation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think what probably would make sense, and Ray, you could look at this is that you know how with a conditional use, like the form we just filled out? Maybe it would be appropriate for you to prepare some quick form that we use. Because the problem happens is that we make decisions, they go to the other board, and I think the board -- when it's appealed to the board, that's the only way it goes there, they really have a hard time figuring out what it is, or they really want to know why it is that we went the way we went. And I think some of the confusion is that we've got to come up with a format to deliver our decision where they can see that. MR. BELLOWS: I want to make sure I understand. You have the criteria, the primary and the secondary, and you want that turned in more into like the conditional use application where there's a checklist for the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Because essentially -- and Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, the way it's set up without us revising the code today, it's set up that that checklist is supposed to mean something, that we're supposed to score exactly that checklist. We'll come up with a score. Then what Jeff is saying, if something is so out of line on one of those elements, that alone could be reason to deny it and you would note as such, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: I would write down -- ifhe's giving the scorecard, I would just write it down. Or when we take the vote, state it for the record I am voting against this because. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, I would rather we just use like the format we have and just state for the record. We can be more flexible and more fluid in our statements -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Page 83 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- rather than try to interpret. It might be minimized too much on a piece of paper, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. But I think -- in other words, but we don't want it to go to the board and then the board doesn't know why somebody voted denial. I mean, they'd never even know what our score is, so to speak, unless we state, you know, negative reasons in our -- MR. BELLOWS: As I previously stated the last time we had this discussion, the executive summary's presented to the board. In this case it would be an appeal of the denial of a boat dock that reaches the Board of County Commissioners as an appeal. That clearly goes into the reasons why the Planning Commission had recommended denial. An appeal is completely different than a land use executive summary where there's just a little section dealing with the CCPC recommendation. This is an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission, and the executive summary goes into great detail. Unfortunately for the Monte Carlo one, it just wasn't enough information provided by the Planning Commission that gave the Commission enough information to listen to the appeal, and that's why it was remanded back. I think the purpose of the clarification we had with the County Attorney's Office is to help provide the guidelines where the Planning Commission can adequately make those decisions. And I think the clarification that Jeff just provided, that if you have one overriding concern that you still want to recommend denial, even though it's only one item that's in disagreement, you can do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I just want to reiterate again, when the staff reviews, it's based on the criteria. And I'm going to follow up with what Ray said. But the Planning Commission's job is to review the staff analysis. That's where -- I somewhat use the word -- Page 84 May 21,2009 subjectivity comes into play. It's not adding additional items for review, it's reviewing the staff analysis and whether the analysis done by staff, you either agree or disagree with it, then you would comment. During the appeal process, your comments -- and I'll follow up if there's a comment saying through health, safety and safety welfare we believe -- or due to whatever statement that the -- this is a hazard to navigation. In an appeal staff may respond to that, or we may get professional evidence from the applicant to refute that. We will put that then in the appeal. So we would note your reasons. And normally it's up to the applicant to then provide evidence to refute your assessment, unless you got something to back up your position. And that follows up with what Mr. Murray said. But normally -- and don't forget, you're one piece of the process. Many of these boat docks go through the state. The federal government is really the one responsible, from the standpoint of hazards to navigation. They normally through a general permit type activity defer to the state. The state does review for those type of entities like hazards to navigation or other type of activities. That's -- though it's included in ours, it is not something that we evaluate. I don't go out and get a statement from the Corps of Engineers because they're the ones really responsible or the Coast Guard or as Mr. Murray said at one time we talked about a number of boats. We don't -- there's no concurrency or anything like that where we evaluate number of boats. But so you understand the process, you review and -- you review the staff analysis, and then that's where you basically agree or disagree. And if it goes through an appeal, then we comment on your comments. We as staff would comment. But normally that's input from the applicant and the appellate process. Hopefully that made that Page 85 May 21,2009 clear. I do want to point one thing else -- one other thing, and Mr. Schiffer brought it up, but he did allude to the fact that at one time there was a discussion about a checklist and not being used as a checklist. We did an exhaustive search of the records. We found nothing that we could find where we discussed that. I know there was some discussion at one time when we talked about boathouses, which was a different argument and a different discussion, and we talked about view. But we couldn't find anything in the record where we said this was not a, for lack of a better term, a checklist. MR. KLATZKOW: I read every transcript that there was between the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission from the time the recodification on. I couldn't find anything in any of the transcripts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have been going back and forth, Joe. The thing that I thought it was out was when we did the 2006 there's a first hearing and a second hearing. All's I've seen is the second hearing. I've never seen, you know, the dialogue at the first hearing, which is when we would have discussed that. So -- I mean, but that isn't important. Because what -- you know, sending me the second hearing what it showed is that essentially we were bringing something that was dropped in the recodification forward anyway, so it wasn't an LDC change, it was just pulling that forward. I think it's too bad we didn't pull the words I read today along with it, because that would have eliminated the confusion on the scorecard. Because it essentially is saying that you do use that as a scorecard. MR. SCHMITT: Now, if there's something that this body wishes to include, we can certainly entertain that and look at that for a future Page 86 May 21,2009 LDC cycle, if there's something that you believe -- and I think Susan alluded to that in her -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, she gave options. MR. SCHMITT: -- document as well. There's options that we presented to you. And also, we could look at how do we make this, if you want to use the word, a better process in your eyes. Certainly it is somewhat onerous in some field, because if it meets the criteria, could it be administrative. Then again, this -- the board has empowered you to make the decision on these. And it depends, we'll take the lead wherever you want to go with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The funny problem is, you're all talking like the process is broken. I don't see it broken. I do know that this is a big county and what we do with our Land Development Code applies to far more areas than just one neighborhood in all of Collier County. But there is one neighborhood that has continued problems with boat dock issues. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- I can't blame them, they've got a difficult time up there. And for lack of having a level of service and concurrency element in our waterway up there, I think they're going to continue to have a good enough big time -- a problematic time. So instead of looking at trying to fix a county-wide problem that isn't a county-wide problem, we have an area that has an overlay. Why don't they incorporate in their overlay some specific language to what they would like to see in dealing with docks in their area. Maybe then the rest of the county can go on its merry way like they've always been. So I'm just throwing that out as a suggestion. I know some of the neighbors from that area are here. It's intended as a productive suggestion, not as a criticism. Because as each area in the county evolves, they have different unique circumstances, and they may not -- Page 87 May 21,2009 we can't -- we're not generic enough across this whole county to be applied maybe in the same way. Now, with that in mind I want to ask Mr. Klatzkow for one clarification. You had said that we can vote based on public safety and welfare on information that we have received during testimony or from staff or whatever. Could we also vote based on information we did not receive? Meaning if we did not have enough information to support a position, would that be a reason to have a concern for public safety and welfare? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: The overriding purpose of this Planning Commission is to protect the public health and safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Perfect. Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Mark, if I could-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: -- comment on that. That would be a basis where staff -- you would comment that staff conducted its analysis and was insufficient in providing information. And that could either lead to a denial or to a rehearing or whatever, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just try. Let's just make this a hypothetical. Let's pretend we have a body of water, there's a centroid, a riparian line is actually going out across in front of another property. Port of the Isles has these kind of sites. And we have in the past approved them. They come out pretty far. If everything passed on this thing except for the fact -- and it's a secondary criteria, even though in the scope of the dock facilities it's listed as one of the main reasons for this event. If in fact we felt it Page 88 May 21,2009 wasn't fair to block the view of that site with this guy's dock, would that be reason alone that somebody could not do that? In other words, he wants to keep going further out. Some of these have gone out in the eighties of feet to hit the water. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I hate to view criteria, because it is the most subj ective criteria we have. I would say no, that's not a public health or safety issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And which is why I guess it's a secondary criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- if it's okay -- oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to make a comment that I think our code is pretty clear. Because if you look under dock facility extensions, it says that this commission may consider it appropriate to extend them. Not that we shall, not that -- any. It says we may. So I think, you know, we're arguing over something for nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to hear from the public. Is that okay with everybody at this point? I don't know how many members of the public wish to speak. Do we have sign-in sheets, Ray? Twenty-five? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, that's a hot issue. MR. BELLOWS: Five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five, okay. As your name's called, you all know the rules, just please come on up, identify yourself, and we ask that you try to limit the five minutes, and we'll certainly entertain your comments. MR. SCHMITT: Rocky Scofield. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I go before Rocky? MR. SCHMITT: Rich, you want to go first? All right, Rich, then Rocky. Page 89 May 21,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Everybody that wishes to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. MR. YOVONOVICH: I've never understood that on a legislative matter, but okay. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just because you were walking up first, Richard. MR. YOVONOVICH: Good morning. For the record, my name's Rich Y ovanovich, and I'm representing Monte Carlo, not on their specifics of their petition today, obviously since we'll be hearing -- we'll be in front of you at the next Planning Commission meeting. But here to understand what the rules of the game of that meeting is going to be. I prepared a pretty extensive document when I represented Monte Carlo in the original appeal. I don't know if it's been provided to you or not. But I'll basically go through what I argued to the Board of County Commissioners. And I think what's happening is we're forgetting what the purpose of 5.03.06(C) of the LDC is, which is the boat dock extension provisions and the 20 feet. What you start with as a framework of if you live on the water by right we're going to give you a 20- foot boat dock out into the water, you get that as a matter of right. If you want to go beyond that, you have to meet certain criteria, and then you can go beyond that level of protrusion out into the water. It is not a variance, it is similar to a conditional use. It is you're asking to do something that you're allowed to do but go further out into the water in this particular case. So you don't have to prove hardship. And people keep talking about you've got to have some kind of a hardship to go more than 20 feet out in the water. No where in the LDC does it say that, and nowhere in the criteria for that LDC does it say you have to do that. Page 90 May 21,2009 Mr. Schiffer pointed out some of the legislative history. And what ended up happening is originally we had these criteria back in the early Nineties and through the Nineties that led to a lot of confusion as to what is the Planning Commission supposed to look like in approving a boat dock extension beyond the 20 feet that's allowed in the code. So we had the criteria that talked about the primary and the secondary. And you had to pass four out of the five of the primary and four out of the six of the secondary. And then if you did that you can go out more than 20 feet. And that was codified into the Land Development Code. And then we did the recodification process in 2004, and some stuff was dropped out through that recodification process. But if you look at the legislative history, it was always the intent that if you -- these criteria were just that, they were criteria to get an extension beyond the 20 feet that you have as a matter of right. As a property owner and as a representative of property owners, I have to have the ability to tell my property owner what they have to do to be able to go beyond 20 feet. And these criteria were established for that purpose. These criteria are your public health and safety welfare standards. If you meet these criteria you have satisfied the public health, safety and welfare standard. Because keep in mind, government cannot adopt a law unless the basis of that the law is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. So you have a rule that says you can only have 20 feet and you can go beyond that. That's the law, that's the public health, safety and welfare. So you have these criteria. We go through, and it's my burden through my representatives, to put in the record how I've satisfied the criteria. Once I've done that, the burden then shifts to others to prove through competent substantial evidence that I have not satisfied those criteria. The law says I have to be able to advise my client. It can't be Page 91 May 21,2009 arbitrary, can't be capricious, it can't be the whim of the Planning Commission. What I'm hearing today is is that I could satisfy the criteria and that may not be good enough. Well, that can't be. I mean, I've got to have definition for my client. I've got to be able to explain to my client what they've got to do to satisfy that. Otherwise your law falls on its face. It's arbitrary, it's capricious, it's not specific enough. You can't have that. So certainly those standards were there to identify what you have to prove to get to the level of going beyond 20 feet. I don't understand this okay, you can meet the criteria. And I asked the question to the Board of County Commissioners, if I satisfy all of them can I still be turned down? I seem to get the answer, it was well, you know, if there's some other reason, yes. Well, I ask the question now, if I satisfy all five of the primary and all six of the secondary, can I still be turned down? Based upon the advice you're getting today, and I'm not certain, and I need to know how this may be -- play out in the future, it certainly can't be the right answer. If I've satisfied four of out of the five and I've satisfied four out of the six, what additional criteria, so I can tell my client this is what you've got to look at. And be objective. Because I need to know the objective standard of health, safety and welfare. If you want to have some kind of level of service, go out and do a study, adopt a level of service. That seems to be what I'm hearing in a lot of this part of the county is that they're worried about draft the boats, they're worried about how many boats are out there. Yet there's no objective standard that's being portrayed or brought forward. Until you have that, you can't -- we shouldn't be getting into that area. We need to look at these criteria, I need to tell my client this is what you've got to satisfy, and once you do that, you get to move forward. Otherwise, I don't know how to advise a client what they Page 92 May 21,2009 have to do to satisfy the Land Development Code. And I don't think that was the intent or what the words of the code said. I think you have to follow -- you have to satisfy four out of five and four out of six, and if you do you get approval, and if you don't the board or the Planning Commission can deny it and then ultimately the board will decide on appeal, but it is those criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you created a paper for your position in regards to Monte Carlo that went before the Board of County Commissioners? MR. YOVONOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind e-mailing that to the Planning Commission? MR. YOVONOVICH: I don't mind, but keep in mind, a lot of it's fact specific. But I do give a legislative history of how we got to where we were in that analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be nice to read it for background. MR. YOVONOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's public record, I don't-- MR. YOVONOVICH: It is. I'm happy to send it to you, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do. MR. YOVONOVICH: -- wanted you to know there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to send it to Ray so he can then send it to all of us, that works better. Then staffs got a record of it as well. MR. YOVONOVICH: They have it. It was in the appeal that went to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way you want to do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer, then -- hold on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, let me ask you a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Mr. Kolflat after that. Page 93 May 21,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm starting to get really genned out on this topic, believe me. And after going back and reading it, I think it is a checklist now. I'm going to support a checklist. I think everything you said is 100 percent right. But why do you think it comes before the Planning Commission? MR. YOVONOVICH: You know, I meant -- I left that out of my presentation. You all-- and Joe brought it up. You are essentially -- if we were in a court system, you're the trier of fact. You're the jury. I have the burden to submit a petition. Staff will analyze that petition and I'll go make my case to you. If someone from the public comes forward and says you know what, it does impact, we are extending out into a channel, even though my data says something it doesn't. If they can provide you evidence that my data is incorrect, then you are the trier of fact and you decide whether or not I satisfied the criteria. If I don't satisfy the criteria, you should turn me down. But if I satisfy the criteria, you should approve me. You're the trier of fact. The board has decided for these types of approval, they want you to be the trier of fact instead of staff being the trier of fact for satisfying their criteria in the Land Development Code. That was their process. You're the judge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So our job in this thing -- and the reason I'm focused on it, this is the only thing the Planning Commission does that it has final judgment on. But every one that we overrule gets appealed, so essentially we don't. The point is that our job solely is to check the homework -- I'm being sarcastic -- MR. YOVONOVICH: I understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- of the staff and that's our job. If the staff says that the waterway is 200 feet and we think it's 210, we discuss it. If it's 150, we discuss it. And that's our job. MR. YOVONOVICH: No, your job -- that's part of it. But if the Page 94 May 21, 2009 public comes in and says listen, I've got this following other evidence on the criteria that contradicts -- and it's got to be competent evidence -- then it's your job to decide which evidence is the correct evidence. It's no different than when you make -- you just made this last recommendation on the conditional use. There were criteria. The applicant submitted information on those criteria. Your staff evaluated that. You heard public testimony. Did they satisfy the criteria? You made a recommendation of approval, yes, they satisfied the criteria. Now in this case instead of making a recommendation for approval you're saying yes, the applicant has satisfied the criteria and we're going to grant approval, or no, the applicant hasn't satisfied the criteria so we're going to deny. That's the difference. And the board for whatever reason decided that you needed to make that decision instead of it being a staff level decision. And I saw that one of the alternatives was to basically turn it into an administrative process like an SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm really starting to support that for the simple reason that, you know, something could really bother us, which it has in the past, yet it didn't trigger the scorecard enough to really make us be able to legitimize a denial. And so why are we even doing it? I mean, you know, usually view is the issue. Usually a neighbor comes in and says, if you let this guy come out that far he now has the ability to put a boat cover on it, he now has the ability to put a boat dock -- I mean, a boathouse if he wanted to on it, and -- I mean, so it ends up being a discussion where the neighbor's upset about view. I mean, the criteria are pretty objective. I mean, so I'm really wondering why we're even doing it. MR. YOVONOVICH: And that's a policy decision for the board to decide. Maybe staff makes the decision and someone's unhappy with that the appeal would come to you, I don't know. But it's set up Page 95 May 21,2009 right now for you to make sure I passed each of the steps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Klatzkow gave an introductory comment about how he recommend we analyze this. I gather from your statement is you do not agree with his -- MR. YOVONOVICH: I don't think you can say that I fail one of the five criteria on the primary and turn me down. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're saying that if you create a navigational hazard but if you meet everything else you get it. MR. YOVONOVICH: What I'm -- MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is that that is preposterous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, your turn will come. We've just got to -- let's take it in order here. Mr. Kolflat -- MR. YOVONOVICH: Jeff, I would venture to say if we are building our dock into a marked channel, we would be failing one of the other criteria like interfering with our neighbor's use of their own dock. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. YOVONOVICH: So we would fail two, we wouldn't fail one. I think your hypothetical, like they teach us in law school, is to go to the farthest -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, focus on answering-- MR. YOVONOVICH: -- spectrum versus -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Tor's request-- MR. YOVONOVICH: Okay, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not Jeff. Okay, you're addressing your issues to the Planning Commission -- MR. YOVONOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and Jeffs going to have an opportunity to rebut and that's the way it will be. Page 96 May 21,2009 MR. YOVONOVICH: Mr. Kolflat, I don't think that the hypothetical that was posed to you is a hypothetical that's real word. If you do go into a marked channel, which is a navigation issue, you will also be interfering with your neighbor's ability to use those docks, so you'll fail two out of the -- two of the primary and, therefore, you would fail. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you're saying if it's a hypothetical, what if that hypothetical comes to fact, true? What is my position? What side should I take as far as taking advice? Do I take guidance that you're giving me or do I take guidance the County Attorney is giving me? MR. YOVONOVICH: Well, you know what my answer's going to be, so I don't want -- I don't want to put Jeff or myself in that position. What I'm saying to you is, and I -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm in the position, you're not. MR. YOVONOVICH: -- think I'm right -- what's that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I said I'm in the position, you're not. I have to make a decision on which way I should make the analysis. MR. YOVONOVICH: I think you look at the criteria, and if I'm interfering with navigation, I think you'll see that I fail one of the others. So you would say I failed two of those criteria in the primary and you would say I vote against this because it fails the navigation issue and the interference with the neighbor's dock issue. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, let me give you another hypothetical then. Let's say that the boat dock I'm planning to put in, I intend to fuel that from a truck that brings gas up to the area with a hose that's 300 feet long that can run around on the front up to the dock to fuel a tank in the boat, so forth. Is that a condition that I might see is not in the public welfare? MR. YOVONOVICH: Well, I didn't realize that one of the Page 97 May 21,2009 criteria when we submit an application is how -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's not one of the -- MR. YOVONOVICH: -- you're going to fuel it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- criteria, that's the point. It's not one of the criteria but it certainly affects the public -- MR. YOVONOVICH: And I would say you probably have the same issue if you have a 20- foot -- if someone's bringing fuel by a truck, you know, to fill it, that's probably, you know, a problem. I don't know, Mr. Kolflat, but that's -- you know, I've never been asked in application process how do you plan on putting fuel in the vessel. I've just never been asked that question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, there are several organizations in this county that deliver fuel that way and they deliver it both to condominiums and individual homeowners' docks. And that's a well-used way of delivering fuel. MR. YOVONOVICH: Well, it could be. And if that needs to be one of the evaluation criteria, you need to throw that into the mix. But it's not one of the evaluation criteria -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think-- MR. YOVONOVICH: -- that's in front of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that what we could have here is we could go on all afternoon with Richard debating with each one of us these particular issues. He's going to have his issues and we're going to have ours. So we need to move forward and get everybody's concerns on the table. And then at the end of the day we'll have to walk away with some kind of conclusions. Jeff, did you want to have anything to say at this point? MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean, I'll stick with my point. If you think that there is an issue here that involves the public health and safety, you can deny it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd like to make one comment to that effect as far as -- Mr. Kolflat, the County Attorney's Office is the Page 98 May 21,2009 office that represents this Planning Commission, or vice versa. They actually advise the Planning Commission. The applicant's attorneys come in all day long and they'll have all their opinions, and they're very good legal counsel. But in the end I think it's the County Attorney's Office that has to defend us in our actions, and that's the criteria that I would suggest we pay more attention to. So with that in mind, thank you, Richard and -- MR. YOVONOVICH: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll hear the next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Rocky Scofield. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield for the record. I also represented Monte Carlo, but I'm here today just for this discussion. I'm going to make it short. I'm in agreement with what Rich said. I have just a few comments. I agree with Commissioners Strain and Caron, I don't believe this system's broke. I think it's been a long time, a lot of thoughts gone into the LDC. We have a set of criteria. It's worked before. We come before you with the evidence. You look at it. It's hashed out. Members from the public can speak, and you decide. We have the criteria we go by. And I think that system works fine and I don't see reasons for change at this time. I mean, we can micromanage things to death and put more rules and codes on the book, but I don't think it's going to serve any purpose. Just a couple of things. The illustration that Mr. Klatzkow said about the one thing proceeding out more than 25 percent, you know, before we even come here, the county has a rule. When you get a building permit, you have to prove -- you have to show them first the DEP and the Corps of Engineers permit. So those already have been attained. Page 99 May 21,2009 In the DEP, the state permit, they will not give you a permit if you go out more than 25 percent of the navigable waterway. So that criteria, which is also in the BDE application, that's there too. But that has to be met or we don't even get a DEP permit. Without a DEP permit we don't pull a county building permit. So that is kind of set in stone. So we can't go out way exceeding on the one criteria and say well, we met all the rest of them so give us a permit, because we'll never get a state permit. So the point there is moot. We've put a lot of time and a lot of the clients' money into preparing these applications. And everything is looked at. And what we bring to you we feel is the real situation. And it's given to you, it's given to staff. They pore through the criteria, and it comes to you. And I think the system works, and I don't see any need for change at this time. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, just a comment. And I've listened to it now from Richard and I see the county staff at times nodding their head in agreement with you guys. I'm sure that when County Attorney Klatzkow used his example of a dock going across the water, he was trying to show a point. Not physically saying that's how someone would apply for something. The point simply is that if we feel there's an overriding public safety, health or welfare concern to anything that comes through this board, I don't care if it's a dock or what it is, we certainly have a right to vote against that for whatever reasons we want to express. And I think that applies to docks. And I think that was the intent of what Mr. Klatzkow was trying to use as an example, not to take the example and say, well, this is impossible to do. I think everybody knows it's impossible to do it, but it's just that kind of impossibility or any kind of other thing that could come along that would have an absolutely detrimental impact that we have a right to weigh on. That was the Page 100 May 21,2009 intent, I think. It was a concept, not -- MR. SCOFIELD: And I understand that. I said that but, you know, that's what's been going on. I've been doing this for many years and the system has worked. You all look at that ( sic) situations and that's what you make your decisions on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the system's fine, and I do think that for areas that have specific needs beyond the system, that's what we have overlays for, and that should be where we -- hopefully this may go. Go ahead, Mr. -- MR. SCHMITT: Can I just ask a question, and I want to follow up, because you said if you find there's a health, safety, welfare. The only thing we as staff would want to know is your reasoning for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: Because if they appeal, that's the kind of information we present to the board, and we present any evidence to the contrary. So that -- and staff doesn't choose sides, all we do is present the facts, your position, we present to the board any information in regards to either our assessment or the client's. So that's the only clarification that I would need and my staff needs in regards to any ruling that we make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think this board now with this second one, they've been remanded back, or there's questions about other ones that have appealed before, we know very clearly in the future we will have to be much more diligent in the way we describe our concerns. And we will. So with that, we'll look for the next public speaker. Thank you, Rocky. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, just one last comment. You know, it always comes up on the drafts of boat. And I was just talking to Rich a minute ago. The criteria, you know, does not confine the drafts of boats. Page 101 May 21,2009 N ow that -- if that wants to get into an overlay or something in another area to specifics to a community, that's another thing. But, you know, boat sizes and drafts like I said, you can lay up a 60- foot boat along someone's property withdrawing who knows how much water. Those are not situations that are, you know, addressed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, for the sake of time, I'm certainly not going to debate that with you, but I want you to know I disagree. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that-- MR. SCOFIELD: I know you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- who is the next public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Robbins. MS. ROBBINS: I would like to cede my time to Bruce Burkhard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard. MR. BURKHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Burkhard, and I'm the Zoning Committee Chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. Originally I thought that I would be here talking to you about the conflict between using a checklist and taking all the authority away from the board. And it seems that as things have progressed, everybody is pretty happy with the current situation and the fact that we're not going to be using these criteria as a total checklist, that you folks are going to be able to use your experience and discretion and rule on any specific extension issue. So I'm pleased with that. I think, Mark, that you have a great idea as far as adding some criteria for the overlay for our particular specific area. Because we do have a lot of problems. And it seems that we're sort of a target area for developers and speculators, and that what happens is that we get people moving into the area, they buy a somewhat marginal lot, I Page 102 May 21,2009 think we had an example of that very recently, and then they try to add value to the lot by coming here and asking for dock extensions or boathouses or whatever. They add value, they make money, they run, they leave, and the neighborhood is left with the results. And sometimes bad results. We end up with excessively long docks. We had a situation when I first got involved with the neighborhood association, we had a neighbor that had a very marginal lot and what he did was he came here and he asked for a 60- foot dock extension. And by God, he got it. And there was no real good reason that he needed it. He claimed that he couldn't get his boat up and down whenever he wanted to. Well, none of us can, we're dependent on the tides to a certain extent. And we're also dependent -- even if we tried to get out with a low tide situation, we probably wouldn't be able to get out through the channel at certain times. So what I'm saying is that I think that we need to be looking specifically at our area and see if we can come up with some better criteria or maybe some additional criteria that will help us out in our area so that we minimize and maybe get rid of some of these excessive speculation situations and undesirable visually (sic) situations as well. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I would hope that -- I know you know your commissioner real well, and I would hope that maybe if you expressed your concern for the overlay to him and possibly he gets together with staff to see what it would take, I certainly think this commission would entertain -- thoroughly like to review that idea and see it move forward. I think it would be a benefit to a lot of people, including those in your area. When you mix everything in with the county as a whole, it's real hard to find exceptions. MR. BURKHARD: Oh, I understand. Yeah, I know particularly down in Marco Island and the Aisles area, that there are real shallow water problems. Page 103 May 21,2009 And that's not our problem. In most cases we can get our boats in virtually up to the seawalls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BURKHARD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker, B. J. Savard-Boyer. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here simply because it is a boat dock thing, and for the last 10 years I've been speaking to you about boat docks. And it seems like we keep going over the same thing, the same thing. So to put it in the overlay I think is an excellent idea. And going back to the why 20 feet? In the Vanderbilt area, as you know, I don't know if you all are aware of the fact that we don't have really deep waters back there. And at one time to get out to Wiggins Pass, Turkey Bay did quite a zigzag through there. And maybe when it was 20 feet it was for smaller boats that wouldn't have knee deep water. So going back over the years, maybe that was the reason 20 feet was it. Now when someone wants -- why do they need more than a 20- foot dock? For a bigger boat? And as Bruce said, to add value to their property? Why don't we get into why do they need it? If they need it because it's shallow up by their seawall, that's different. But why else do they need another five feet, other than having a five-foot longer boat? So I think we need to put it into the overlay. And again, thank you again and again and again for all your time that you put into this. I'm sorry it's always us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I hope that we can see that happen with your overlay. I think that would be helpful to a lot of people and expedite a lot of processes we have here. So with that in mind, with that said, any other comments or any Page 104 May 21, 2009 other concerns from the Planning Commission on this particular issue? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I wanted to bring up one thing that I didn't earlier and that is that the code says boat dock facilities slant boats -- I mean dock facilities slant boat (sic). It limits the boat to 20 feet as well as it does the dock facilities. So it is carried in the code that the boat length is limited. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, could you put that on the overhead a second real quick? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, this isn't a debate. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, maybe when they wrote that what they really had in mind was like a four, five-foot dock parallel with the seawall and then a boat sitting out of that 15 feet. Nobody envisioned davits and where we've gone from there. This thing up at the top, see where it says the Planning Commission shall? When I read that, I realized I may have been wrong. Because what that's really telling me is that I do use those criteria, I shall base my decision on those criteria, I obviously have the ability to do conditions and stuff. So I think, you know, that got dropped in the recodification. But the game -- the fairness -- you know, it's contrary to my position. But the fairness was that if it was there before, it's got to come forward if it's causing a problem. Because we didn't change the code at that time, we just reorganized it. And that's not even saying health, safety and welfare, that's saying the criteria. So I wonder if it would be smart to put that back in and then we move on with it and we know what this is and what this isn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I think all that's happened is we have -- we still do this. We still listen to the criteria, we still weigh it Page 105 May 21,2009 in by the criteria, but as the County Attorney says, we can interj ect common sense. That's all he's saying by public health, safety and welfare, what it is is common sense. And I think the criteria evaluation is subjective enough that the staff may not look at it in one way, but we may have an issue that's another practical concern that we can interject into it. I don't know why we would want to change that, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the reason it bothers me the most is because we have looked at some boat docks and we have what I think injected common sense. You know, the Ben Nelson one is the one that triggers the most, not the Monte Carlo. And there was problems there. They were going way out into the water, they were blocking the can -- we did all those things, we said all those things, and it ended up being -- you know, even after the memo that I had to write, it ended up being something just ridiculed, bang, you know, 5-0, it's over. So, you know, let's not play the game anymore, let's just do -- let's just play with it like a checklist. I think the point Rich is making, right, they have to enter into this process with some expectation of fairness. And my opinion would be just make it something that staff reviews. If a neighbor has a concern, they can appeal staff to this board and we can check their homework. Other than that, our hands are somewhat tied by the scoring. The draft situation as to the depth, if you read it, it's -- the general depth of the length and type of draft as the petitioner described. It's not even what's suitable for the neighborhood, it's what he wants. If he wants the Queen Mary, he puts it in the application, can fit it within his property dimensions, nothing we can say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think there's plenty we can say, Brad, but I guess it's a meaning of interpretation. I think the whole panel may just weigh in then. Does anybody -- what's the consensus of this panel? l'lllook to Page 106 May 21,2009 you all, by raise of hands, do we want to see the code left as it is with the interpretation provided to us by our County Attorney? All those in favor of that, just raise your hand and say aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those who'd like to see it changed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I at this point would like it to become something that staff takes care of solely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd like to see a change. And Mr. Murray, you would like to see it changed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure what I want to see, because I've been thinking about this for a lot of time here, and quite frankly I am concerned that because of this one area that we are going to go forward and create problems. Why don't we leave it the way it is? The only question I will raise is what Commissioner Coyle raised about multiple units. One of the criteria relates to multiple units as opposed to single boat docks. And should that have its own area? It doesn't comport. You know what I'm referring to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know what you're referring to, and I don't know where -- I don't know of an instance where that one's really come up as an issue. It's again back to my -- I really like the philosophy if it ain't broke, don't fix it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I happen to like your suggestion, Page 107 May 21,2009 and I think that would solve 99.9 percent of the problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I understand what Commissioner what's his face down there is saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's his face? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a mental problem for a moment. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That happens to lot to me, too. Well, I think the consensus is we accept the County Attorney's and the county staffs consensus to this, with the clarifications we got today, and we move forward leaving the language like it is. If there's a possibility of an overlay, hopefully the Vanderbilt people will approach their commissioner who then can kind of see something happen through the county staff and maybe something happen that way. I think that would be good for Vanderbilt Beach area. With that in mind, we'll move on to the rest of the agenda. There's no new business listed. Any other public comment? With that I'll entertain a motion to -- oh, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: One issue. Future planning. You all should have gotten or will be receiving your LDC booklet for the sign code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We talked about that in the beginning. MR. SCHMITT: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mentioned to everybody it's going to be 8:30 next Tuesday, June 2nd, so be about two weeks. And we're going to start with a working document on page by page. MR. SCHMITT: Everybody got it, hopefully. It should have gone out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? Page 108 May 21,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by nobody. I'll second it. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're done, we're out of here. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :49 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on Presented or as corrected , as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 109